Post #610: Random Observations
Apologies are in order. This is the first thing I've published in over two weeks. Have you ever had a time when you don't feel like saying anything to anybody? That's the way it's been with me recently. I'm coming out of it, thank you very much. Here is a little recap for late October:
1. No Go Joe
As you no doubt have heard by now, Joe Biden will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2016. I'm of mixed emotions about this. I've said here before that while I like Barack Obama a whole lot, I love Joe Biden and think he would have made an excellent chief-executive. The problem is that he probably would not have made a particularly good candidate. The right wing scream machine would no doubt have had a field day with his age and the fact that he is not a stranger to complete candor (some call it "shooting from the hip"). He had a great and distinguished career and there is no doubt that history will smile on he man. I'm sure that Joe sleeps very soundly a night.
`
2. The Great Benghazi Backfire
`
Their intent was to totally destroy Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Here's how badly it exploded in the GOP's clueless faces: Before the hearings on Benghazi, my support for Ms. Clinton was non-existent. On my best days I was indifferent toward her. That's all changed. Although y heart is still with Bernie Sanders, I'm not half as hostile toward her candidacy as I was a mere two weeks ago. What a difference a day makes. It was nothing more than a political circus that they've wasted millions on - and anyone paying attention should be smart enough to see through their scam. The problem is that so few of us are paying attention. Go back to sleep America.
`
3. The Donald is Not Going Away
`
Back in June everyone was saying (myself included) that Donald Trump's candidacy was merely a weird flash in a rancid pan that would disappear as quickly as it dropped into the national spotlight. A lot of us are eating crow tonight, and nearly five months after he announced that he was in, it's obvious that the man isn't going away any time soon - which is fine by me. The self implosion of the Republican Party is the most entertaining political spectacle of my fifty-seven years on this troubled planet. He may even get the nomination next summer, which would be too good to be true. I come here not to bury The Donald, but to praise him.
`
4. Open/Carry in the South? Brothers Beware
`
There is a growing number of reported instances of black guys being gunned down by the police in states with those moronic open carry laws. In each case these fellows were murdered for no other reason then they were openly carrying a loaded firearm - perfectly legal behavior. It's high time we call these laws what they are. A war on the non-existent threat of African Americans. Did I say, "Go back to sleep"? On second thought: Wake the fuck up, America.
5. Eventually you've got to let go. Eric Servareid once said of his colleague, Edward R. Murrow: "He was pessimistic about tomorrow, but optimistic about the day after tomorrow." Murrow was wrong. We've had it.
`
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
`
Afterthought:
`
The photo at the top was taken about eight years ago. It only survives in the form of a photocopy I found buried in my briefcase. I'm not too sure exactly where this was taken or why - but I like it. Someone remarked that I look like Lou Reed. Cool!
`
2. The Great Benghazi Backfire
`
Their intent was to totally destroy Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Here's how badly it exploded in the GOP's clueless faces: Before the hearings on Benghazi, my support for Ms. Clinton was non-existent. On my best days I was indifferent toward her. That's all changed. Although y heart is still with Bernie Sanders, I'm not half as hostile toward her candidacy as I was a mere two weeks ago. What a difference a day makes. It was nothing more than a political circus that they've wasted millions on - and anyone paying attention should be smart enough to see through their scam. The problem is that so few of us are paying attention. Go back to sleep America.
`
3. The Donald is Not Going Away
`
Back in June everyone was saying (myself included) that Donald Trump's candidacy was merely a weird flash in a rancid pan that would disappear as quickly as it dropped into the national spotlight. A lot of us are eating crow tonight, and nearly five months after he announced that he was in, it's obvious that the man isn't going away any time soon - which is fine by me. The self implosion of the Republican Party is the most entertaining political spectacle of my fifty-seven years on this troubled planet. He may even get the nomination next summer, which would be too good to be true. I come here not to bury The Donald, but to praise him.
`
4. Open/Carry in the South? Brothers Beware
`
There is a growing number of reported instances of black guys being gunned down by the police in states with those moronic open carry laws. In each case these fellows were murdered for no other reason then they were openly carrying a loaded firearm - perfectly legal behavior. It's high time we call these laws what they are. A war on the non-existent threat of African Americans. Did I say, "Go back to sleep"? On second thought: Wake the fuck up, America.
5. Eventually you've got to let go. Eric Servareid once said of his colleague, Edward R. Murrow: "He was pessimistic about tomorrow, but optimistic about the day after tomorrow." Murrow was wrong. We've had it.
`
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
`
Afterthought:
`
The photo at the top was taken about eight years ago. It only survives in the form of a photocopy I found buried in my briefcase. I'm not too sure exactly where this was taken or why - but I like it. Someone remarked that I look like Lou Reed. Cool!
posted by Tom Degan @ 10:57 AM
109 comments
109 Comments:
Tom, your third observation evidently was cut off.
1.) Joe would be better than Obama, however that is a very low bar to cross.
2.) No matter what the mainstream media says, all of the accolades for Hillary "surviving" the hearings in simply more turd polishing by the left. The bottom line is that she is a liar and untrustworthy.
She told the Egyptian prime minister and her daughter right after the attacks that these were perpetrated by terrorists in a planned attack. Weeks later SHE, Obama, and Susan Rice are telling the rest of us peon Americans that it was a spontaneous attack because of an internet video. Hillary had the audacity to lie to the faces of the families of the deceased about this and said that the producer of the video would be jailed.
She also set up a private server. Not just a private email account, but a private server upon which she conducted sensitive state department business. The FBI has confirmed that she did transmit classified information on this server.
Petraeus was convicted for sharing his classified schedule with his biographer. Hillary evidently gets a pass for her transgressions. IOKIYAD.
And the truth of why military help was never sent to assist the consulate under attack still has not ever come to light.
Those hearing weren't a referendum on how innocent or smart Hillary is, rather they are yet another indication of the impotence and worthlessness of the Republicans on the panel, sir.
3. List Clintons two best accomplishments as Secy of State
Joe Biden, the ultimate politician who brought us pubic hairs on a Coke can. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA You know how to pick them Tom!
"all of the accolades for Hillary "surviving" the hearings in simply more turd polishing by the left."
lol, lol. Tom will smoke a lot of good pot and then go to the polls with a clothespin on his nose and poke the chad for Hillary! Don't leave it hanging Tommy!
Hey T.P. what do you think of your Conservative side kick Chuck constantly posting under my name, weird, wonderful or what?
Another reason to vote for Sanders, he wants to remove pot from Schedule 1 and make it legal in all 50 states.
There are presently 80,000 swat team deployments in the US each year, many of them for simple possession of pot. Here is story that happens every day in the idiotic drug war. They break down the door and kill unarmed people for having a plant in their house.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/cop-who-killed-peaceful-unarmed-man-he-tried-open-his-door-wont-be-charged
Chuck: "3. List Clintons two best accomplishments as Secy of State"
Now that is funny! :)
James Hansen, (the real one) I don't know who is stealing your name and using it, but I absolutely agree that doing so is NOT cool.
There does indeed seem to be a less than serious conservative troll on Tom's blog. I don't think that person is Chuck though. He actually has a google identity and the writing is different. It is typically far more serious and well thought out rather then the simple quick sniping done by this other person.
Now, on to your next point, Mr. Hansen. This country has already been dumbed down far too much as it is. Legalizing pot across the nation will not help this problem.
We need to do things to strengthen families, increase our intellectual potentials, and improve our lives. Sitting around smoking a doobie is probably not the best way to go about doing that, legally or otherwise, in my humble opinion.
T.Paine, you are a newbie here so do not know that Chuck stole the name of a Liberal named Charles Moore years ago and has used about 20 other made up names also. Harley was posting way back then so he should remember him. He is with out a doubt stealing my name and I should know as I have had extensive interactions with him over several years.
Legalizing pot is the linchpin to democracy in this country. The focus of the entire drug war is mostly on pot which is becoming the golden bullet to combat numerous diseases and medical conditions. For years there were 800,000 stop and frisks mainly looking for pot in NYC, the majority were young black men carted off to jail at a rate of 50 to 60,000 per year. More than a million people are in jail for a beneficial plant. Hundreds of innocent people are killed each year by police looking for pot, a waste of money and lives.
Sanders is the to stop this nonsense, no one else has the courage to work for the people.
My lord, what a bunch of children.
Mike Huckabee made a point of the fact that he has been on the other side of Arkansas politics from the Clintons. "And," Huckabee said, "I lived to tell about it."
And got a big hand.
This whole debate, which was supposed to be about the economy, and which touched on the actual economy only briefly, when it touched on it at all, took place in the strange wonderland of conservative politics that coalesced when Bill Clinton interrupted what was supposed to be 16 consecutive years of Republican presidents in 1992. That shock to the conservative system was so profound that the Republican party's immune system, which already was being compromised by the prion disease it picked up when it first ate all the monkey brains at the end of the 1970s, broke down entirely, and disease caused it to construct within the party's mind an entire geography of illusion and dark, nameless terrors. Huckabee's cheapest of cheap shots found its mark because the audience in Boulder was made up quite clearly of the people who live in that unreal political consciousness that has been created within the conservative fearscape – which, to them, is a very real place haunted by very real villains.
It is the place where Barack Obama actually is a "socialist," where Carly Fiorina can run on her dismal record at Hewlett-Packard "all day," where Chris Christie can talk about the rule of law while his lawyers back home are answering motions, and where anybody–like, say John Harwood–who brings up the empirical reality within which the rest of us live can be dismissed with an airy wave by ambitious young hacks like Marco Rubio and outright loons like Dr. Ben Carson. It is a place where you can get rousing applause by accusing a panel on CNBC that included not only nutty Jim Cramer, but also Tea Party ranter Rick Santelli, as just another hit squad from what Rubio called, "the Democratic SuperPac–the American mainstream media." Ask them about real positions on real issues, and you're not treating them fairly. Ask them about what they believe to be true, not what actually is true.
- Charles Pierce
Mr. Hansen, I don't know that jail time for possession of small amounts of pot is the answer, but legalizing it certainly is not the answer either, in my opinion.
What? Liberals want to control the name my parents gave me?
What's next, the number of jack o lanterns I make for Holloween?
TP
I used to include my IP address to prove to James, Davy and Mozart that I was not "stealing" their names. Like Harry from CT did. Then I pointed out the feature that shows where the last ten posts where located on a map as a way to figure of the poster is who they say they are.
You know what, Davy said I could be moving around (like from Ct to MO) in 2 hrs to trick the map. I then told Mozart that I lived in St Louis and while right now I'm visiting in N TX, that's my home
TP, I've come to realize that either our liberal "friends" are not smart enough to figure who's who with the info I've given them
Or
They can't believe there are more than 2 people who disagree with them.
Either way it shows them to be more concered with attacking the messenger that dealing with the message. Why is that? I believe because they can't dispute the message so have to discredit the messenger. Ad Hominem is what it is called
Then I find it laughable for James to call us side kicks while he, Davy and Mozart March lockstep together in quoting from the same talking point release from the DNC.
Guys, I will let you continue to discuss out here. For now at least, if this Random Post is evidence of future offerings, I'm moving on.
None of it makes any sense or is worthy of serious follow-up.
TP,
Just ignore the multiple occasions when "Chuck Morre" responded to comments addressed to his other names, and vice versa.
I've checked the map link several times after Chuckie posted. CT was indicated, while neither St. Louis nor Texas were. When he posted under different names at my blog all of them were from CT.
Nothing to see here.
He's a liar, but he needs you because you are the only one who believes him.
You've invited the famous weed/liquor comparison:
"We need to do things to strengthen families, increase our intellectual potentials, and improve our lives. Sitting around sipping Wild Turkey is probably not the best way to go about doing that, legally or otherwise, in my humble opinion."
A time and place for both medicines, my friend. Jail is destructive, expensive, cruel, and unusual punishment for responsible use of either of these, or any, drugs.
Too many people still only know the propaganda of a failed drug war. Canada just voted out a PM who insisted weed was "worse than heroin". Imagine that.
People believe what they want to believe, don't they? Liberals, and even conservatives, are both learning the relative harmlessness of cannabis, especially compared to alcohol, tobacco and many pharmaceuticals.
The same is true of the costly, inhumane and failed war on drugs. There is no rational reason to not tax and regulate cannabis like alcohol.
Treating a public health issue as crime is not only unjust; it creates more problems than it solves.
What? Liberals want to control the name my parents gave me?
That is the biggest pile of steaming horse shit ever posted on the Rant!
Show us the birth certificate proving you are not lying and I will send you a check for $ 100.00 bucks.
Davy
It is you that is either a liar or is just plan ignorant, I suspect you are both
I am now n Ft Worth and will return to St. Louis next Wednesday. I am posting this using my iPhone have no idea how that show on Toms blog site
I don't recall posting on your blog
TP
I find it amazing that democrats are claiming the Bengazi hearings helped Hillary when if nothing else they showed what a liar she is
To wit: the email to her family stating the attack was a terrorist attack yet for two weeks on, she blamed it on the trailer for a video whose entire movie was never released
My name is chuck morre, it's the you whose name I think is false. Prove me wrong!
HarleyA
You used to post with a name that was linked to a site What happened?
The question of weed being legal or not is simply one of how does our social fabric improve by legalizing another drug which alters the human mind?
The question of weed being legal or not is simply one of how does our social fabric improve by legalizing another drug which alters the human mind?
The primary question should be, "Why is it illegal in the first place?" The second should be, "Why are we continuing the same failed policy?"
More accurate than "legalizing", would be de-criminalizing that which was legal in the past. God made it. Did He make a mistake that politicians needed to correct? Jefferson grew it. Probably smoked it. Was he a social undesirable? Queen Victoria smoked it. Was she a social undesirable?
Yes, it alters the mind, but it doesn't destroy brain cells like booze can.
The failures of the drug war should be obvious. Wasted tax dollars in police, courts and corrections, diverting law enforcement from serious crime, laws enacted that invade privacy, drug gangs, broken homes due to incarceration for non-violent crimes, criminal records that deny employment, rights to vote, or receive scholarships, etc.
Not a good record on improving the social fabric.
This is entirely unacceptable and unjustified for a non-toxic drug that was criminalized on "Reeefer Madness" false information.
Davy
So the problem is the laws against weed, not weed itself?
Interesting.
But the question still remains unanswered, how does legalization of weed make society better?
If the goal is to reduce the number of people in jail, what other laws should be done away with that would also reach that goal?
I want to see how legalization of pot in CO impacts all parts of society in 5 years before I jump on the legalization train.
Harley, you might want to check out a forum by James Howard Kunstler. He wrote the Long Emergency, a book about the world as it goes through peak oil and resource depletion. There are about 500 posts per week from a very intelligent group of people. Unlike the Rant posting bull shit or stealing names gets you banned on his blog. Kunstler is not as Liberal as Tom so you might feel more comfortable there also.
I hope you still keep posting here as you always have something intelligent to say.
I wish you would never say anything at all. Nothing but hypocritical, liberal, bullshit.
Dave Dubya,
I live within walking distance of the Colony Diner in Wallingford, CT.
I'll be there Saturday morning wearing my Donald Trump shirt. I'll be looking out for you wearing your tattered "Hope And Change" shirt.
Lets try to resolve our differences peacefully. Otherwise it won't be the first time I've dropped a Marxist.
Harry
192.168.1.264
I think Trump and Carson will flame out and Ted Cruz will be going against Clinton. What are your predictions? Clinton wins in 2016 but I will not be voting for her.
Mr. Hansen, I think you are quite prescient in your predictions. Cruz is very well organized and will ultimately win the primaries for the GOP. The corrupt and execrable Hillary will win the Democrat nomination and will choose Sanders as her VP running mate, thus consolidating and solidifying progressive support. Cruz will destroy her in presidential debates on facts and logic and the public and media won't care. That said, the majority of Americans who now want government to take care of them will vote for Hillary and the beginning of the end of our republic will ensue.
I also distrust and dislike Hillary. That still doesn't help any Republican appear any more honest, though.
That said, the majority of Americans who now want government to take care of them will vote for Hillary and the beginning of the end of our republic will ensue.
Back to the old formula. Mis-characterize and blame. Rinse and repeat.
With enough repetition anything becomes true. Nicht Wahr, mein Freund?
Ted Cruz is an extremist fanatic. He represents politics and a vision of government that was out of date in 1860. He is connected, rhetorically for the most part, to the darkest manifestations of the American political Id. And he combines that with a kind of unendurable self-righteousness that has alienated even the other extremist fanatics in the conservative leadership elite. From an early age, Cruz has been taught that he is the hidden golden child of a fundamentalist America redemption. (The source of this messianic self-regard is his father, preacher Rafael Cruz, who is not an extremist. He's simply a lunatic.)
- Charles Pierce
Anonymous
Original with you? Or would you care to site your source?
You spelled "site" correctly!
And go to Esquire.com and read Charles Pierce.... you can even leave troll comments after his column. Until they ban you, anyway.
Unfortunately, the correct word is "cite"
Funny how Chuck, SoreLoser, Harry and all the other RW puppets here make the same usage mistakes. Must have all gone to the same school.
TP
What are your sources for " the majority of Americans want govt to take of them"?
I would be more comfortable with more Americans depend on assistance from Govt and therefore will vote for the candidate who says they will continue to provide and to grow that assurance if elected
This will be the end of our grand experiment in self government and self reliance and accountability
As it has been posted here before by a liberal " vote your best self interest, vote for the liberal" I believe is what is going to happen in 2016
Of course this ignores the harsh reality of a population of govt dependent citizens when there are fewer people working and paying taxes than there are non working and non tax paying citizens
Do the math, the radical socialist liberal promise for us will only increase the size and appetite for more revenue of government
Really Dave? None of the Republican candidates are anymore trustworthy than Hillary? Do you even read what you write, sir? Do you REALLY believe that? Even among Democrats, Hillary's polls on trustworthiness are in the toilet, and for good reason.
Next, how did anything I say mischaracterize the situation? The fact of the matter is that there are indeed, based on the previous two presidential elections, more people that look to the federal government to solve their problems than not. And f*#k yes, I blame these people for the state of our nation. Some of them have done so out of ignorance and not due to personal fault, but that doesn't change the fact that our Republic is over now that people realize they can vote for stuff out of the purse of the federal treasury.
And thanks for the Hilter-ish German allusion, Dave.
Do you really think that someone that is as corrupt and untrustworthy as Hillary is will uphold the constitution and the rule of law? She violated numerous laws and ethics just in her position as Secretary of State with her private email server, transmitting classified data (as per the FBI), and making self-enriching deals with corporations and foreign entities having business in front of the State Department. It is someone of such low moral character and such ambition for power that becomes the very dictator that you implyingly accuse me of supporting with your German-speak. So enough of your nonsense, Dave.
Quit whining that everyone is mischaracterizing and blaming you and then turn around and double down with the crap you are spewing. Talk about double standards, sir!
Chuck, no increase in your Social Security checks this year.
Our condolences.
I know you were counting on that cost of living adjustment.
Something about the price of gas? Could you explain?
TP
Right on!!!
And although I am loathe to ever respond to anyone named "anonymous", just how is Ted Cruz and extremist? Lots of bed-wetting liberals say this, but they don't have any specifics. I guess if you are strictly for the rule of law, pro-Constitution, and pro-capitalism, that makes you and extremist by today's leftist standards.
"I would be more comfortable with more Americans depend on assistance from Govt and therefore will vote for the candidate who says they will continue to provide and to grow that assurance if elected
This will be the end of our grand experiment in self government and self reliance and accountability
As it has been posted here before by a liberal " vote your best self interest, vote for the liberal" I believe is what is going to happen in 2016"
Well said. This is exactly what I meant, Chuck.
"That said, the majority of Americans who now want government to take care of them will vote for Hillary and the beginning of the end of our republic will ensue."
Bed-wetter?
And Chuck! What will you do when President Cruz privatizes your social security checks? One more wall street crash and it'll be back to work for you!
TP said:
the majority of Americans who now want government to take care of them
Before he adds his own false far Right demonizing, even Chuckie asks:
What are your sources for " the majority of Americans want govt to take of them"?
No source given. Belief trumps fact.
Meanwhile as Chuckie pointed out, “Do the math”. Where were the jobs numbers going when Bush left us with failed deregulated capitalism and the Great Bush Recession? And you Republicans want to lecture US about jobs. LOL!!!!
This now stands on firmer ground:
Back to the old formula. Mis-characterize and blame. Rinse and repeat.
With enough repetition anything becomes true. Nicht Wahr, mein Freund?
Maybe if the Big Lie was objectively sourced and wasn’t constantly repeated as truth I wouldn’t need to indicate the source of their operating principle. Nicht Wahr?
NOTHING will change the Right’s false indoctrination of what liberals think. They have all the answers. The Right always needs to bring up “free stuff”, (as if corporate welfare, corporations paying no income tax, and privilege of wealth didn’t exist) and assert that is all liberals want.
Bullshit, lies, false beliefs, ignorance and hate, There. I call it for what it is.
Liberals want jobs for the unemployed and assistance for them until it can happen. Liberals and moderates like Social Security and Medicare. They know it’s a Right Wing lie to call what is basically public funded insurance “free stuff”. They also know the Republicans want to give these programs over to their crony capitalist friends. Talk about "FREE STUFF" in capital letters.
Read that first sentence again. Liberals want jobs for the unemployed and assistance for them until it can happen.
When will this sink in?
Never, because the propaganda tells them otherwise. Beliefs tell them otherwise. Beliefs trump facts. Beliefs about what liberals think trump what liberals actually say.
And the next time anyone ignores this and posts their BS, they will be called on their fascistic scapegoating again.
TP said:
Do you really think that someone that is as corrupt and untrustworthy as Hillary is will uphold the constitution and the rule of law?
Holy crap! Where did you dream this one up?
Once more:
I also distrust and dislike Hillary. That still doesn't help any Republican appear any more honest, though.
I swear you guys on the Right don’t bother to make an effort to understand what we say. The misunderstanding and mischaracterizations seem to be a feature, not a bug.
I think TP and Harley try a bit more than Chuckie to understand, but false beliefs still have a lock on their thinking. They can’t let them go. Maybe the idea of not having those beliefs leave them fearful in an uncertain world. Better to feel certain, and be wrong, than to question one’s beliefs.
AGAIN, I repeat that the fact that a majority of Americans voted for Obama in the last two presidential elections on his campaign of government largesse tells me that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF THEM. When one runs on that premise and gets elected because of it, logic suggests that such is the reason for one’s winning, Dave.
Next, yes, jobs were falling under Bush when he left office with the recession under way. Look at my government sourced graphs that show that Obama, despite the Democratic media PAC’s lies to the contrary, things have continued to get worse under Obama.
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-obama-economy.html
From health care costs, incomes taxes, median income, home ownership, civilian labor force participation rate, and governmental welfare outlays for SNAP, all have gotten worse under Obama’s “leadership”. Those are the facts and sourced on my blog from our own federal government. Even the U6 true unemployment rate for the nation is STILL in double digits right now. You wouldn’t know it to listen to the media, you, Tom, or Mozart. Obama has been a great “success” according to the Democrats.
And you haven’t been paying attention to me if you think I support corporate welfare. So who is mischaracterizing whom, Dave? I have tried very hard to give credit when it is due, admit when I was wrong, and call out fellow conservatives when they were not in the right. You have never admitted being wrong despite being shown that you are and have always doubled down when it comes to defending even slimy people like Hillary. Such is your choice, but if you are going to act surly with me, I am going to return in kind, sir.
I don’t have a problem with Social Security and Medicare either per se. I have paid into them after all. That said, I have a problem with government raiding those programs so that I will likely never see my social security benefits when I retire. I think fixing them is a good idea, but nearly all politicians are too scared to even suggest such a thing for fear of being demonized with Alinsky tactics from the left.
Oh, and for the record, we have not had unfettered capitalism in this country since I have been alive. We have had crony capitalism and corruption from corporations and government that distorts and perverts it though. That is hardly free-market capitalism, by any stretch.
And my question to you about Hillary was in response to your ridiculous implication that she was just as dishonest as any other Republican. If you are measuring political honesty by degrees, she is all the way over at the bad end, while with the exception of Trump, all the Republicans are anywhere from center to good on the honesty scale.
Anyway, I going to go back and talk to my wall again. I will probably have better luck getting through to it.
TP
Just read again Davy's most recent post. It is now clear to me that he would rather vote for Hillary than ANYONE from the GOP because they APPEAR to him to be corrupt while Hillary is CORRUPT.
That's how important appearance over reality is to him
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Republican party imploding? Really.... The Dems are the party wih one candidate running for presidnet.... Sanders and Omalley lost already... Clinton has the delegates already and the proecess did not even begin... The Republicans liike like a healthy party with various people with many ideas. The Dems are like the CCP, party first, no debate, no ideas, just the party... the party..... Deagan, in his state of delusion also forgot lst November, when the "D" lost in an historical manner. Did you forget??? The "D" is actually on the death spiral. THe "D" is stuck in the early 40's when socialism was new, stale, and proven to fail. The GOP is in a renaissance where NEW ideas, which have never been tried are slowly over the party, rhe libertarian movement is slow but sure. The GOP is actually at this point the anti-establishment, while the "D" is the stale old rich white party...... The irony is so hilarious..
the stale old rich white party...... The irony is so hilarious..
Someone has no clue what irony is.
Realitydenier is the hilarious one. And obviously a Republican shill. He doesn't want us to know we tried the great Republican "new ideas". Tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation of Wall Street, voter suppression, corporate cronies in regulatory positions, war based on lies about Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda and "nukular" aluminum tubes were all failures for our security, economy and jobs.
TP,
Maybe you seek messages from your wall more than from my words.
So Obama winning the election is your “evidence” most Americans want “free stuff”? After what Bush left us, you think that’s why a Democrat won??? Not a shred of evidence to support the claim of “campaign of government largesse” either. Is that what you call ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich? This is pure presumption based on, and in support of, your beliefs. This is not logic. Indeed it seems you are the one who has doubled down on your “Americans want the government to take care of them” claim.
It’s nice to see you admit Bush left us a recession, but then true to form, Obama and liberals get the blame for the consequences. More ideology over logic.
You misinterpreted this statement of fact as accusation:
The Right always needs to bring up “free stuff”, (as if corporate welfare, corporations paying no income tax, and privilege of wealth didn’t exist) and assert that is all liberals want.
Please show us where you see mischaracterization, or an accusation that you support corporate welfare. I can’t see it.
I think you’re reacting before you understand the message again.
I’m quite befuddled how you think my saying I “distrust and dislike” Hillary is “doubled down defending” her. Just because Republicans are liars and jerks doesn’t mean Democrats are not, and vice-versa.
“My brother kept us safe”? Come on. Liberals want “free stuff”? Bullshit. “Benghazi attacked because of a video”. Also bullshit, but not before the facts were known, though. It was reasonable to suspect this initially because the embassy in Cairo was attacked over the video. Do you not remember this fact?
If you look hard enough, you may see I agree with you on something in that statement.
Bush was attacked rightfully for wanting to give public safety nets like SS and Medicare over to his corporate cronies for private profit. If this what you call “being demonized with Alinsky tactics from the left” then I don’t know what else I can say to ease your paranoia or anger.
Sanders, on the other hand, understands we need to raise the cap so the rich pay more than you and I do. It’s called “fair share”. It’s not fair when you and I pay the same tax for these as the Kochs and Soros, is it? Do you think they can’t afford it?
Seems to me blaming liberals’ desire for “free stuff” as the reason to not vote for Republicans is worse than whatever the hell an “Alinsky tactic” is.
And to borrow from George Carlin, it is bullshit, and it is bad for you, and it is bad for other people, and bad for America.
I’m only keeping my promise from my last post.
Shread of evidence?
Detroit Obama voters after his
Victory
" we are waiting for Obama cash from his stash to pay our bills".
Enough said
" we are waiting for Obama cash from his stash to pay our bills".
The city of Detroit said that, Chuck? REALLY?
It's amusing that the only way you can make an argument is to make things up. You have a history of that.
My advice to you would be to change your pseudonym. Your act is getting quite old.
Tom, this would be a better place if you showed up more often to push back against some of the untrue right-wing talking points that get parroted here. This is your blog. Own it.
Tom
Maybe you would do well to read what I posted instead of putting words into my mouth
Tom
You can apologize to me after you google "Obama stash"
But I won't be holding my breath
I googled it and saw it came from "Rush Limbaugh .com"
As usual, your sources are impeccable!
And isn't it great that google plus lets you go back and edit comments? Adds a whole new level of fun mischief to your trolling.
Speaking of trolling, I love how sore loser, chuck morre, harry, and all your other aliases all make the same spelling mistakes.
"site your source"
And they all share the same bizarre obsession with prison guards. Seriously, what's up with that? Why all the aliases? Don't your arguments stand up on their own?
Chuckie’s response to my statement that TP offered no evidence of Obama’s “campaign of government largesse”, was a quote from ONE misinformed Detroit woman. “Enough said”.
This is NOT evidence of Obama’s campaign of course. It is a cherry picked comment from a woman in a crowd. This is the sort of thing that sends a tingle up a racist's leg, of course. Just the thing we have come to expect from Chuckie, not that he's a racist. ;-)
But what can we expect from misinformed ideologues and Oxy-moron Rush’s dittoheads who still believe Bush’s lies about Saddam’s “nukular” aluminum tubes and his being in cahoots with al-Qeada?
Not a shred of evidence for these claims either, but that doesn’t stop the true believers from mocking the ignorance of others hoping for housing assistance.
So how many Americans died because of this woman being misinformed? Zero.
How many Americans died because Bush and Cheney misinformed the American public? Going on five thousand Americans and unknown thousands of innocent Iraqis.
But Obama is the evil one, amirite?
I do not think it is Toms job to debate the Conservatives here but it should be his job to be a good land lord. He runs this site like a slumlord, letting the riffraff break the windows and steal the copper pipes.
I was amazed how many people visit this site when the visitor counter was still working, and that only 5 or 6 people post here. Part of that is because he lets people say or do anything, like when Chuck said "the best part of Liberals dripped down their mothers leg". That turns people off. Posting anonymously and under aliases should be banned as it is on Kunstler's blog.
If the post and visitor count went way up, this site could be monetized to cover more than just the hosting fees but maybe Tom does not care about that aspect.
James, the number one turn off; the reason more people don't comment here is the name stealing.
The very first time I posted here a few years back, I did so under my own name. When I returned the next day I saw someone else had posted some stupid comments stealing my name. I had told a friend about this blog, and he also commented, and the same thing happened to him.
That's the reason folks are reluctant to talk here. Take a look at the archives. Before "chuck sore loser" showed up. A ton of smart comments from a variety of people!
The only people who have never had their names stolen are T. Paine and HarleyA. That's because they're not "liberals" and therefore not targets.
Asshole Chuck Sore Loser Douchebag is what political operatives call a ratfucker. He's not here for honest debate. He's a vandal. A hypocrite who collects government checks while complaining about liberals wanting free stuff.
As far as Kunstler's blog, I see a ton of silly names. Very few commenters use their real name over there. A nazi named "Vlad" used to spout racist bullshit. Now he's "Janos" and Kunstler tolerates his hate speech against Jews and minorities. He actually advocates for Hitler and nazism! The only time anyone gets banned on Kunstler's blog is if they criticize Kunstler.
But at least no one steals names over there.
Davy, etc
Strange, but both of you over looked the YouTube videos showing Detroit Obama voters saying what I posted
In your Rush to discredit me you failed to see the truth
Typical
How many "Detroit Obama voters saying" that again?
He quoted ONE.
And as I noted this is not evidence of Obama’s “campaign of government largesse”. We know to some, any government spending that doesn't go towards killing people is "largessse". Even still, Obama never campaigned on, "Vote for me and I'll give you free stuff". This is just their propaganda.
But it delights racists to portray an uniformed black woman seeking help as "Obama's America" during the Great Bush Recession.
It was part of the stimulus package that worked to repair some of the damage done by the Great Bush Recession.
From the Washington Post:
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject
The article concluded with “… the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.”
Considering how much the Republicans obstructed this, it still succeeded.
The Stimulus was less than a trillion and about a third went to tax cuts. On the other hand the Tarp programs were between 16 and 24 Trillion dollars and QE 1,2,3, and Infinity came to a another 5 trillion dollars.
We could of been living in the Garden of Eden if most of that money was spent on infrastructure, jobs, and social programs. Add to that tax cuts for the rich and 2 disastrous wars we could of saved another 15 trillion.
In other words Neo- Conservative and Neo-Liberal policies bankrupted the country morally and financially.
Here is how things go when you do not have treasonous greedy cowards making all the decisions !!!
http://www.blacklistednews.com/First_They_Jailed_the_Bankers%2C_Now_Every_Icelander_to_Get_Paid_in_Bank_Sale/47002/0/38/38/Y/M.html
James nailed it:
Neo- Conservative and Neo-Liberal policies bankrupted the country morally and financially.
Neo-cons and Neo-liberals will blame progressives though. It's what they do.
Quoted one, isn't it interesting how it means nothing if just one Obama says something but it means everything if just one conservative is quoted
It's what liberals do
Chuck, your problem is that no matter how many aliases you have, they all have the same IQ.
Mr Hansen
Don't you ever get tired of beating a dead horse?
Honestly, do you believe that falsely claiming I post under different names or that I've "stolen" someone's name has one bit of effect on me when it is not true?
You only do that because you can't handle someone posting here something that disagrees with your beliefs. It's called ad hominem and I'm sadden you have lower yourself to Mozart and Davy's level
You and I used to have reasonable disagreements
Harley and T.P. have different views from me and I always treat them with respect as I once did you.
In the interest of having a better forum I will bury the hatchet and refrain from criticizing you and we will see where that leads us.
I'm confused between voting for Hillary and Bernie.
Its pretty obvious Hillary lied through her teeth about a video causing the Benghazi attack. Only a moron would rationalize that it was OK to lie while standing amongst the coffins of the departed killed at the Benghazi compound. If Chelsea had been at the compound at the night of the attack, would the military had been told to stand down (sorry but no fucking way Jose)?.
FDR promised a chicken in every pot on Sunday.
I would vote for the first Democrat who promised free good state approved pot and free Ben and Jerrys Ice cream every Sunday. A campaign promise based on this would cement my vote.
I'm really tired of working, and will vote for the candidate who promises me the most "free stuff" from the blood, sweat, and tears from others pulling the wagon for people like me. No skin off my ass if those pulling the wagon get taxed to death.
Fellow central planning believing progressives let me know your thoughts.
Aahh... CPUSA link! What a coincidence. Same link as Sore Loser, Harry, Chuck, etc.
Great minds think alike. Or maybe just one mind, deeply sociopathic.
"Aahh... CPUSA link! What a coincidence. Same link as Sore Loser, Harry, Chuck, etc.
Great minds think alike. Or maybe just one mind, deeply sociopathic."
Sounds like Jefferson's Guardian. The man with the warped mind who thinks Bush was part of 9/11. There is no cure for your sickness. How fast did WT7 drop again?
How fast did WT7 drop again?
Sounds like an asinine question from a Bush apologist who thinks the Shrub "Kept us safe".
His Great Decider was just too busy leading from behind "The Pet Goat" on 9-11. Not surprising, since he ignored the warning "Bin-Laden determined to strike in US". Cui bono?
9-11 was less investigated than Benghazi! Bush and Cheney, being Right Wing authoritarians, not only opposed investigating it, they refused to testify on the record. Nothing to hide, amirite? Cui bono?
What else could we expect from two slimeballs that ignored clear warnings of attack?
They are guilty of gross negligence at the minimum. They ultimately responded with treason and a war based on lies that spawned civil war and ISIL in Iraq. Now we have the fruit of the plan the neo-cons had been pushing, in their dreams of "another Pearl Harbor" to get the country behind their war crimes.
Cui bono?
http://patriotsquestion911.com
The best and the brightest minds in the US including 220 high ranking senior military and government officials support the view that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Tens of thousands of professional people in dozens of 9/11 websites all feel we were lied to.
Are they all sick and warped? Ha Ha
Davy,
If Gore had won the election what would he have done to prevent 911 with the info that was given to GWB?
I.E: Bin laden was going to strike America
What did Clinton do with that same Intel to prevent Bin Laden from striking America?
Where the people who carried out the 911 attack already in America when GWB was finally sworn into office?
If so, what did Clinton do to stop their attack?
If not, what policy should GWB followed to have prevented them from entering America?
Neither Clinton nor Gore got the August 2001 "Bin-Laden determined to strike in US" intel that Bush dismissed with, "Your ass is covered".
Clinton's adviser Richard Clarke, who was also Bush's anti-terrorism adviser, was ignored and even banned from cabinet meetings.
Read that again and tell us how Bush "kept us safe". This is reason enough to never allow a Republican in the White House. Then came the Bush Great Recession. This too is reason enough to never allow a Republican in the White House.
If not, what policy should GWB followed to have prevented them from entering America?
The point is Bush DID NOTHING! He behaved as if he wanted it to happen. He stared into space and led from behind "The Pet Goat".
All your whining and demands to hypothetical questions about Clinton can't change the facts.
Think of the MSM as a small Scandinavian village, so far untouched by “diversity.” Since everybody knows each other, and follows the same rules, life is calm and good.
It’s only the outsiders — those conservatives — who disrupt the natural harmony. Like foreign bodies, they must be mobilized against and expelled by the progressive immune system.
To quote a famous Leftist, Benito Mussolini, the founding father of Fascism, “everything within the State, nothing outside the State.”
Davy
In you haste to continue your anti GWB stance, you ignore answering my fair questions
As much as you hate GWB
What would Gore done in August to the news that the USA was going to be attacked how and where? If gore had been president what do you think he would have or could have done in a month to prevent an unspecified attack on an unspecific location?
I'd still like to know if the terrorists of 911 where here before GWB took office?
Hopefully you will think of this not in political terms but in historical terms and think how events would have been different if Gore had won. He was after all Clintons VP, surely he would have had more info than GWB did in August
Final thought
What do you think GWB should have done with the intell that we were going to be attacked by Bin laden? Time, method, location unknown?
Think of the MSM as what it really is, corporate media. Then consider FOX (R) and talk radio as Right Wing corporate media. They are all in business for profit. Journalism is subordinated to "access" to power and not offending corporate sponsors.
Mussolini and Hitler both espoused socialistic dogma to lull the people into following them.
Turns out education, unions, and voting were undermined to support the nationalistic war machine. Teachers, liberals, union members and advocates of liberal democracy went to the camps with the Jews.
Communists, Fascists and the modern Republican party all share teachers, liberals, union members and advocates of liberal democracy as enemies of their agenda.
From the definition of Fascism that Mussolini coauthored in 1932 for an entry in the Italian Encyclopedia:
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
Who else holds to their values as "holiness and in heroism" and scream about "class warfare"?
That's right. "Those conservatives".
Chuckie is demanding we depart from reality to answer his hypothetical questions. He's doing his best to distract from the fact that, after fair warning, Bush did NOTHING.
Run from reality, Chuckie. Run, run, run.
For one thing, Gore would have listened to Clarke and not ban him from cabinet meetings.
After all HE was the combat veteran, not the Chickenhawk slimeball cowards who stole the election.
Davy
What should GWB done with the Intel received in August that America was going to be attacked by an unknown method at a unknown place at an unknown time?
What would have been different with Clarke at cabinet meetings, did he know more like when where and how America was going to be attacked?
Do you think of Clinton as he now admits should have killed Bin Laden while he was still n office that 911 would have happened?
Should GWB have treated Bin laden like a criminal and go after him with the FBI or was Clinton right in turning down the offer of bin laden because there wasn't enough evidence to arrest him?
What should GWB done with the Intel received in August that America was going to be attacked by an unknown method at a unknown place at an unknown time?
Apparently your answer to this would be the same as Bush's "Nothing", since it was all Clinton's fault and Bush is entirely blameless.
Is this your answer? Nothing.
If it isn't, I'll tell you mine, but only if you tell me yours.
In good faith I offer two thoughts,
One: The known factor was bin-Laden intended to strike the US.
Two: The World Trade Center was a known target.
If you want to know more, tell us your answer. What are your thoughts? Fair enough?
No Davy my answer is not nothing cause I don't know what could be done
That's why I'm asking you in good faith that if GWB knew without a doubt that the Trade Center was the target, what should have been done
It's easy to keep saying GWB did nothing, in asking with the Intel you say he had and with in the time frame of actual events, what should he had done?
I'd still like to know what you think if Clinton had killed Bin Laden like he claims he could have? You think there would have been a 911?
And I'm still interested in knowing if the terrorists who carried out 911 attack where here before GWB was sworn into office
Trying to answer your question, which I think it is what should GWB done with the Intel received in August?
1 check out the source of Intel
2 determine the timing and location of the attack
3 determine the method of the attack
4 determine where the attackers were located
All of this in a month.
Now, am I correct that Clinton could have captured or killed Bin Laden that 911 would not have happened? After all the 1st World Trade Attack took place under his watch?
And am I correct in saying that the Intel did NOT provide for what was going to be attacked but Bin Laden was going to attack America?
I do find it strange that you who are so quick to place blame on others, can't or won't answer what you think should have been done UNTIL I say what I think should have been done
Let's see how good faith works with you on this subject
Your turn
Actually what is more important is what happened after 9/11 That is the more important disaster that is still ongoing. I am certain a president Gore would have handled everything differently and for the better.
Mr Hansen
How would things have been different and therefore better?
Wasn't Mr Gore a part of the administration that turned down Bin Laden and didn't kill him before 911, this after the World Trade was attacked the 1st time, and whose own Intel said Hussan had WMD's?
Would he have prevented 911 and if not would he have put into place the Patriot Act which if in place before 911 might have prevented the attack?
How would Gore have kept us safe after 911?
The Patriot Act was written long before 9/11 as it was hundreds of pages long and was voted on just a couple of days after 9/11. Nobody really knew what was in it and the Repubs were exerting a lot of pressure to pass it. Oddly enough the 2 Dems that were holdouts to passing the bill, Dachel and Leahy, got anthraxed. They signed the bill, LOL
So Gore would of never passed such a bill written by the Repubs.
Iraq was not North Korea. we had a lot of assets on the ground and knew exactly what was going on there. WMD was political bullshit used by two admin because Sadam was selling oil on the Euro and you do not weaken the petro dollar and not pay a price.
Gore would never have went into Iraq and that would have changed the world.
Would reinforced cockpit doors on all airliners be an unnecessary gubmint regulation? Nader was advocating for those way back in the 1970s...
Eeeek! Socialism!
Who controlled congress when the Patriot Act was passed? I guess I thought the act was passed after 911. Can you advise or should I google myself?
Thank you for saying two admin used false WMD instead of just GWB
Am I correct in saying the Clinton administration was one of the two?
Mr Hansen,
Who controlled congress when the Patriot Act was passed? I guess I thought the act was passed after 911. Can you advise or should I google myself?
How would President Gore kept us safe after 911? How would he as President prevented 911 if he was made aware of Bin laden was going to attack America in August?
Thank you for saying two admin used false WMD instead of just GWB
Am I correct in saying the Clinton administration was one of the two?
Mr Hansen
WOW, Joe Biden wrote what he called the cousin of the Patriot Act in 1995. He took pride in doing so
I take this to mean that the Clinton admin had the power to have uncovered terrorist activety (including the OK City bombing ) but did nothing.
What is your take?
"Chuck Morre"
Would reinforced cockpit doors on all airliners be an unnecessary gubmint regulation? Nader was advocating for those way back in the 1970s...
What is your take?
Trying to answer your question, which I think it is what should GWB done with the Intel received in August?
1 check out the source of Intel
2 determine the timing and location of the attack
3 determine the method of the attack
4 determine where the attackers were located
All of this in a month.
Now, am I correct that Clinton could have captured or killed Bin Laden that 911 would not have happened?
Very good. I appreciate your being adult about contributing instead of always trolling and harassing.
So we agree Bush should have done something instead of demonstrating failure in leadership by doing nothing after being warned. And then he led from behind “The Pet Goat” as 9-11 happened. Terrible leadership.
Extremely poor leadership was exacerbated further by obsessing on invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. Remember his first words to anti-terror advisor Clarke was a demand to link Saddam to the attack.
Which brings us to what he should have done after the August 6th warning. We can confirm the source of the intel was correct. You are on the right track with your list of what to determine. You didn’t offer any details, so let me fill in a few.
First, he should have listened to Clarke and NOT EXCLUDE HIM from cabinet meetings. The Bush Administration didn’t want to hear about al-Qaeda whenever Clarke tried to discuss it.
His January 5, 2001 memo on dealing with al-Qaeda was basically ignored and he was removed from the cabinet meetings.
The Bush Administration finally allowed the meeting Clarke urged….on September 4, 2001! Let’s add EIGHT MONTHS of ignoring al-Qaeda to the list of poor leadership.
Second, he should have sent the warning to as many law enforcement agencies as possible and urge them to pool their intel. As Special Agent Coleen M. Rowley noted: “The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay" charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the agents' reasonable suspicions.”
There’s one of the attackers AND the method of attack plus the WTC being a known target.
Doing nothing and dismissing Clarke were the first two great failures of George W. Bush.
There’s no reason to assume 9-11 wouldn’t have happened without bin-Laden. He didn’t plan or execute it. So Clinton cannot be held liable for 9-11 by not killing OBL. The 9-11 Commission indicated the problems associated with killing him at the time. You DO believe the 9-11 Commission, correct?
Davy
GWB was not in office in January of 2001
But the president who was in office, did he ignore the warning?
Surely you aren't giving Clinton a pass on that fact?
OK. 3 swings, three misses.
GWB was not in office in January of 2001
Wrong. Low information voters don’t know Inauguration Day is January 20. It was Clarke’s transition of administrations memo to Rice that was dismissed. It was to be eight months before al-Qaeda would be on Bush’s agenda.
But the president who was in office, did he ignore the warning?
It was Bush who ignored the warning. Clinton was not in office in August 2001.
Surely you aren't giving Clinton a pass on that fact?
And just what “fact” would that be? There are zero facts to be found in every sentence of yours.
Dave, never mind that Clarke has some credibility and partisan issues, but your memo listed from him does not provide any specific information from Clarke of an imminent attack. It does not specify time, target, mode, or people involved. It was basically a generalization of a continuing threat. Using this memo as a basis for thwarting some ambiguous threat on America is useless.
That said, if GWB would have financed the Northern Alliance or sent CIA personnel to disrupt al Qaida plans in Asia, Africa, etc., I suspect that many of our liberal friends would still claim that we were interfering and inciting them to strike us. (As if we simply were to treat them nicely, they would just go away and leave us alone.)
Bush was with kids at an elementary school when the attack occurred. It is the kind of thing that presidents have done for many administrations. What would you have had him do when first told of the attack? "Oh my God, we have been attacked! Sorry to upset you kids, but America is at war and I gotta go!" Give me a damned break. He said he sat with the kids for a moment so as to collect his thoughts and not cause a panic in the room. He then got up and left. Your "pet goat" tirade comes off as just a weak partisan jibe.
I know that Atta was known about before 9/11 and not taking him into custody sooner was unforgivable. That said, I am not aware of specific target information and time frames being made aware to our intelligence agencies prior to the attack. If so, can you provide a credible source for that assertion, please?
Let's get real for once Davy, you are ignoring the fact that you hold GWB guilty for not reacting until August on info from a Clinton hold over but claiming at the same time he should not have believed Clinton Intel about Iraqs WMD's
The real question is what do GWB and when did he know it, the same could be asked if Clinton Especially after he admitted he could have killed Bin laden and the fact that he turned down Bin laden, both facts that you simply gloss over
Don't forget that Clinton had an early form of the patriot act and did nothing with it
Same question could be asked of Hillary
What did she know and when did she know it in light of the events at Bengazi.
Let's face it Davy, unlike Mr Hansen you have zero interest in any exchange of ideas unless the fit your predetermined view that 100% of the blame for events that took place after he was in office for 8 months overlooking any possible blame on the president of the previous 8 years
Clarke Intel was gleaned during Clintons term. Clinton allowed the planing to take place in his watch
I disagree with you that killing Bin laden would not have had much effect on 911. After all it was you who said Clark claimed Bin laden was going to attack America
"you are ignoring the fact that you hold GWB guilty for not reacting until August on info from a Clinton hold over but claiming at the same time he should not have believed Clinton Intel about Iraqs WMD's"
THAT is an excellent point, Chuck!
Can you reconcile that seeming iniquity, Dave?
Dave Dubya,
If Chelsea Clinton had been at the Benghazi compound when it was attacked do you think the military would have been told to stand down?
I think you should shelf the whole Benghazi thing, that horse has been beat to death. Beside that only four people died, that is statistically insignificant compared to the amount of people that died because of the Bush/Chaney policies.
Mr Hansen,
Your response is not only cold and thoughtless it ignores two important facts:
1. Ms Clinton told America one story and another one to her family and leaders of other counties, which was the truth I.E. She lied to America to cover her policy failure in Libya
2. You ignore that the WMD report was from Clinton admin intel yet you blame GWB for responding to that while holding him responsible for not preventing 911 because if he had Clinton Intel.
You simply can not have it both ways
I'm sorry but I really expect better than this from you.
TP, why are you buying into this non-thinkers raving? Did you see how utterly wrong I showed his previous post to be? Is this more IOKIYAR? Three strikes in a row should be enough to send him out. He didn’t exactly follow up with logic and reason. Perhaps you’ve had a couple Wild Turkeys and were too quick to respond. That’s cool. You can take a more sober reading tomorrow.
But for now:
you are ignoring the fact that you hold GWB guilty for not reacting until August on info from a Clinton hold over but claiming at the same time he should not have believed Clinton Intel about Iraqs WMD's"
THAT is an excellent point, Chuck!
This indicates neither of you comprehended the facts. That “excellent point” is muddled and inaccurate, and it is with an irrelevant and inverted example of the begging the question fallacy, There’s no point for me to respond. It seems neither of you cared to process what I wrote. Neither of you could deny or contradict my facts.
It was basically a generalization of a continuing threat. Using this memo as a basis for thwarting some ambiguous threat on America is useless.
Nonsense. You completely missed Clarke’s URGING a “Principles level review” of al-Qaeda and his list of recommendations. Read it again. “Principles level review” means cabinet level. Instead he was EVICTED FROM CABINET MEETINGS.
Your response quickly led to more reflexive Bush coddling, along with some slime the messenger.
If so, can you provide a credible source for that assertion, please?
I made no assertion about “specific target information and time frames”. Please respond to what I said, and not to what you believed I said.
“Collecting his thoughts”. Lame. He was an unfit leader frozen by fear. Didn’t you see the fear in his eyes?? Your Bush Reverence Syndrome is showing. A leader would tell the class “duty calls” and immediately gather information and get to work.
I can’t expect any objective reasoning, or even fair dialogue, on this stuff from people who still believe the lies about Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda and the bald faced “nukular” aluminum tubes lie in the State of the Unions speech.
I was asked what Bush should have done. I answered in good faith and with reason and fact. I see no need to add to what I said or waste time pointing out flawed responses from a position of poor comprehension or reflexive Bush Reverence Syndrome.
I will gladly respond to fair questions, or when I see evidence my post was read and understood.
TP
The key to Davy's response is one he has used before. He will respond to "fair" questions. In other words if he can't give an answer that follows his party line, he doesn't have to answer it
Remember he holds Christians to the words of Jesus on wealth and poverty but is silent when asked if he believes what Jesus said about himself. Must not be a fair question
As you have pointed out this is typical of Davy. He lives a double standard where GWB lied and thousands died but abortion doesn't end the life of a human by the thousands daily and to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood is another example of conservatives war on women Ignoring the fact that females are being murdered by the abortion tools daily while still n the womb
Claiming black lives matter he ignores the high percentage of abortions that end black pregnancys.
Flawed responses are only flawed if they disagree with DD's presumed position of superiority and cast doubt on his belief
It's a closed bubble world that DD lives in
Unlike Mr Hansen who debates the issue, DD hides behind his curtain of self declared "I'm right and your wrong"
It would be better to discuss, debate or argue an issue with some one who was diverse in their views than one that is closed minded like DD
Dave, sadly Chuck is correct about you in his last paragraph. You have a remarkable way of twisting things when caught in inconvenient facts, sir. Saul Alinsky would be proud. Progressives are masters at this technique though. If someone says something you disagree with, ridicule them, marginalize them, and try to make them irrelevant. That is Hillary's whole campaign strategy. Sadly, it often works on the ignorant masses that don't know any better.
You accuse me of "Bush Reverence Syndrome", while you obviously have a terminal case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
You don't want to have a debate. You want me to agree with everything you say. When I present you with opposing viewpoints and facts, you either ignore them, or claim that they aren't so. You claim that I am exercising double standards and portray yourself as the righteous victim of my right wing ignorance or malevolence.
You dismiss Chuck reflexively but the truth of the matter is that his accuracy rate on the facts FAR exceeds your own.
You choose to deny contradicting facts and evidence presented to you, and that is your right, I suppose, but just know that I am not going be bullied into agreeing with you on things that just aren't so. I guess I could just agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
the truth of the matter is that his accuracy rate on the facts FAR exceeds your own.
It’s amazing how this can be stated while offering NO FACTUAL SUPPORT. Instead we see two posts that have NO FACTS relevant to the discussion. File under “belief trumps fact".
Fine.
Reason, fact, logic, and fair dialogue have been rejected by both TP and Chuckie Instead they focused on me personally and not the points of discussion. This is employing the “Alinsky tactics” they project unto others. Their hateful hypocrisy is blatant.
As I noted:
We can’t expect any objective reasoning, or even fair dialogue, on this stuff from people who still believe the lies about Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda and the bald faced “nukular” aluminum tubes lie in the State of the Union speech.
I was asked what Bush should have done. I answered in good faith and with reason and fact.
This was met with rancor, false accusations, personal slights and fact-free illogical misunderstandings of the points at issue.
Once again belief trumps fact. Innuendo trumps discourse.
There is no cure for willful ignorance, and the fascistic hate and scapegoating they embrace.
Since these seem to be the “values” of the far Right, good faith discussion is impossible. I'm certain this will be met by more personal accusation, demonization, insults, and false assertions. Everything but facts, logic, and reason.
So have at it boys. Spew away. I will no longer dignify your "Alinsky tactics" with good faith response. You have abandoned the discussion.
Goodbye.
Davy
You never entered the discussion
"We can’t expect any objective reasoning, or even fair dialogue, on this stuff from people who still believe the lies about Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda and the bald faced “nukular” aluminum tubes lie in the State of the Union speech."
Yep, this is an example of Dave being fair and open-minded with his discussions. Dave effectively says, if you believe this crap, then you obviously are not objective in your reasoning or fair in your dialogue. In other words, if you don't believe as I do, regardless of the evidence, then you are a fascist right-wing war-monger.
Yep... I got it.
My mistake was assuming I could engage in debate with someone so willfully blind to any facts that contradict his own preconceived notions.
I know... Gore really won the election. Saddam had no WMD's. Bush failed to stop 9/11, assuming he wasn't part of that inside job from the beginning. Hillary, while maybe telling white lies, is still far better than any GOP candidate. And pot should be legal.
The last sentence explains why the previous ones might make sense to someone believing the rest of that nonsense.
T.P. Liberals and Conservatives will never see eye to eye on almost every issue because we have totally different views about our political history. Our sources of information are completely separated and have diametrically opposing viewpoints.
All my reading make me believe the Bush admin engaged in a full blown orgy of treason, torture,theft,murder and corruption unlike anything before in the US. I am sure you disagree.
From what I can see of you, I am sure you are well liked and respected in your private life and I bear you no ill will because of your political beliefs.
If history is any judge neither of us will ever be able to change the others mind but it is still fun to try.
James,
You make a fair and accurate point. I too hold no malice for our uninformed friends. My tone may seem harsh at times, but I'm not the one blaming the other for every wrong in the universe. They are convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs. They now have the internet and 24/7 Right Wing/Republican corporate media reinforcing these beliefs.
The first Big Lie required to support the propaganda is also what all cults do. They tell their people to trust no source of information but their own. They incessantly re-brand corporate media as "liberal media".
"Trust us, not the evil liberal media".
Once that indoctrination is set, the rest is all downhill. The far Right propaganda machine now has immense control over what their believers think.
They are of a belief system founded on far Right ideology intended to divide our citizenry and support entrenched economic interests. While liberals are concerned with global corporatism, inequality, corruption, and suppression of democracy, conservatives are targeted for "mobilization of resentments" and other "Southern Strategy" methods perfected by team Nixon. They are threatened by too many voters and the democratic process of elections and representation.
The program has been a smashing success. Many Americans now see their fellow citizens through the formula we recently explored.
Liberals/Unions/teachers/journalists = Democrats = Socialists = Communists.
This is the operating equation of their ideology.
Once this indoctrination is set, the accusations, blame and scapegoating follow.
The fact it follows the classic politics of fascism results in growing resentments, anger, and hate for fellow Americans.
The followers cannot see this of course, because they assume their moral superiority is immune to extremism.
TP catches glimpses of light when he sees something wrong with corporate personhood and the consequences of Citizens United. Something may be amiss that just might not be the fault of liberals.
But alas, the latter notion would soon be subordinated to the operating equation of their ideology. Their prime directive is to focus blame and anger at those who question, or offer abundant evidence contrary to, their beliefs.
Such beliefs cannot be held without a gnawing sense of fear that becomes inseparable from all that resentment and anger.
As studies have shown, the amygdala, the primitive fear and emotion center of the brain, is more active in conservatives.
So you are also correct that neither of us will change the minds of the other, especially considering the powerful and pervasive propaganda network is on the job 24/7.
Our voices are just annoying and threatening background noise. This would explain the gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation from their past several posts.
Perhaps our words don't compute because they are filtered by their overactive amygdalas.
Just a theory, but at least it partially explains their misunderstanding.
Dave, I find it sad and frustrating that the Conservatives have their own separate version of reality and history so much so it seems us and them are different species. This vast gulf dividing us up only benefits the few at the top, the ultra rich and the mega corporations.
The future looks ominous because of our poor political leadership on both sides and a divided population will never be able to change the status quo.
The future looks ominous because of our poor political leadership on both sides and a divided population will never be able to change the status quo.
BINGO! And the status quo means the decline of unions, the middle class, and the democratic process. It means more corporate consolidation of political power, more trickle up wealth, slashing of safety nets, gutting of constitutional regulation of commerce, and punishing austerity for the public.
Mission accomplished. Their side is winning and they don't even know it. 'Cause gay rights and humane pot laws are un-American.
Mr. Hansen, I appreciate your comments. I agree that it is very unlikely that we will ever be able to convince each other of our own viewpoints. Our core axioms are likely very different, and that is fine. I honestly believe that most of us, left and right, want the same basic things for our nation. We simply have different ideas of how to achieve those things.
I certainly don't hold any malice towards anyone simply because of their political ideology, brand of faith or lack-thereof, color of their skin, or whether they are gay or not.
I try to be open minded and look at both sides of each issue and make the best conclusion based on the evidence available. While I am definitely a conservative with Libertarian leanings in many areas, there are some issues which I side with the left. I certainly don't expect credit for that. Indeed I am more often chastised for my "beliefs over facts" from my political opponents, but I will try to keep up arguing for what I find to be true. If I am wrong, I hope that I can continue to be a big enough and honest enough man to admit that. If only everyone, left and right, would do the same!
That said, I appreciate your stating your positions strongly and without resorting to the Alinksy politics of personal destruction that too often seem to be the tactics used these days.
Cheers to you accordingly!
Well TP it seems that both Mr Hansen and Davy believe that the problem for you and I is our source of information
Guess we will just have to wait for them to share their info source so we can become diverse
Chuck, I do indeed use a wide array of diverse sources. It is a good idea to know what the other side is thinking. Luckily there are millions of sources to find that out. I usually read the New York Times, Huffington Post, and will even watch pompous asses like Rachel Maddow on PMS-NBC to get a well rounded picture on current topics.
That said, many of our liberal friends will still deny inconvenient facts brought forth by even liberal sources, on the rare occasions that they do report on them. Case in point, when the NY Times wrote about WMD's and stockpiles of uranium being found in Iraq AFTER the invasion, some of our debate partners here still want to ignore that fact.
When liberal sources report on contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaida elements, as even noted by foreign intelligence sources that stand by those assessments to this day, some of our liberal friends will still call us blind and putting our beliefs over facts. The irony of that is precious.
It is funny how I am accused of getting all of my information from Fox News and Limbaugh. The truth is that I listened to Limbaugh yesterday for 30 minutes in the car for the first time in many months. It doesnt' matter though. If I think differently than our liberal friends, it MUST be because I am being fed inaccurate information from evil right-wing hate-mongering sources, so they think.
The true irony is that I find very few liberals that ever do actually listen to Glen Beck or other right wing sources before criticizing them. Because of that, they simply repeat what the liberal media tells them to think about those sources.
And yet we are the unenlightened ones!
I still haven't seen any documented evidence that supports TP and Chuckie's beleifs that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaeda and had "nukular" aluminum tubes.
Sigh. Belief v Fact, Round 1,984
Case in point, when the NY Times wrote about WMD's and stockpiles of uranium being found in Iraq AFTER the invasion, some of our debate partners here still want to ignore that fact.
Here we go again. The alleged massive “stockpiles” were NOT found. Small caches of depleted remnants and empty rusty rockets were what they found.
One question that occurs is, If Saddam’s WMD’s were so threatening, why were none of the them used against American forces? No answer expected.
This is déjà vu all over again. I provided the following links and info at TP’s blog, but it was dismissed out of hand.
The yellowcake was documented and sealed by inspectors BEFORE the invasion.
TP is projecting again. As he accuses me of “ignoring that fact”, he ignored the yellowcake evidence I provided for his edification.
U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said….
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.VeCNHflVhBd
The other fact ignored is the old chemical samples found were degraded remnants, and NOT from a chemical weapons program in Iraq. In addition they were even expected to be scattered around the country.
The “biological labs” BS was another lie. No biological weapons labs were found, despite the Decider crowing about it.
The wild 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was also shown to be false cherry-picked intel “fixed around the policy” as British intel noted in the Downing Street Memo.
Rep. Ike Skelton (Dem-MO) grilled David Kay, Director of the CIA Iraq Survey Group from 2003 to 2000, about the weapons unfound alluded to in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. Kay admitted that "evidence of stockpiles of at least 100 metric tons or as much as 500 metric tons of chemical agent" "evidence of possessions of bulk chemical weapons -- fills for short-range ballistic missile warheads," and "evidence of renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX gas," had not been found…. I've said, when I testified, I came to the conclusion that there were no weapons of mass destruction as described in the NIE in Iraq.”
Kay explained, “It really should not be a surprise to anyone that chemical munitions produced in Iraq between 1980 and roughly 1991 have been found there during the course of Iraq -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. Such rounds continue to be found throughout the period that the UN was in Iraq from 1991 until it was kicked out in 1998; they were even found during Dr. Blix's brief period of return prior to the onslaught of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
===
===
When liberal sources report on contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaida elements, as even noted by foreign intelligence sources that stand by those assessments to this day, some of our liberal friends will still call us blind and putting our beliefs over facts. The irony of that is precious.
There’s irony all right, just not where he thinks it is.
Stanislav Gross, Czech Leader Who Erred on Iraq
Mr. Gross made international headlines when, as interior minister, he told a news conference in Prague in October 2001 that Mohamed Atta, a ringleader of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April of that year.
But in 2002, both the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, and the C.I.A. concluded that there was no evidence to confirm the report. Mr. Atta did visit Prague on at least one occasion in 2000 and was denied entry when he arrived at a Prague airport later that year. But the report that he had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was based on unconfirmed statements of a single informant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/europe/stanislav-gross-czech-leader-who-erred-on-iraq-link-to-9-11-dies-at-45.html?_r=0
Atta in Prague: Did It Happen?
In December 2001, Cheney had claimed: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
Uncensored portions of the Senate report say that by January 2003, the CIA had issued two assessments questioning whether the Prague meeting occurred. In these assessments, the agency said that neither it nor the FBI were able to confirm the meeting happened.
The new Senate report says that after the U.S. invasion, American personnel in Baghdad discovered evidence that Saddam’s government considered Zarqawi an outlaw and made unsuccessful efforts to track him down and capture him. Postwar investigations turned up no evidence Saddam’s government ever had friendly dealings with Zarqawi.
http://www.newsweek.com/atta-prague-did-it-happen-109225
===
There you have it. TP, and no doubt Chuckie, know better than the Senate report, the FBI and CIA combined, because Dick Cheney told them the truth.
You can lead a Rightie to the truth, but you can’t expect him to give up his political indoctrination .He will deny all evidence contrary to his beliefs. THAT is the projection he casts at us.
Belief trumps fact, therefore FOX (R) = Journalism and Rachel Maddow = “pompous mean person”.
Bush/Cheney = Truth, and Liberals/unions/teachers/journalists = Democrats = Socialists = Communists = Blame.
These guys are not hard to figure out., what with their authoritarian tendencies and overactive amygdala fear center and all.
Davy
Maybe you missed the election returns of last night in your effort to convict GWB.
You really should start trying to stay current with the events of the day instead of evens of over 8 years ago. You know, become more diversified in your news sources.
And the polls show Hillary getting beat by every GOP candidate except Trump, and her trust numbers are lower than Trumps. Maybe another debate is the answer for her?
But those numbers mean nothing, cause Jeb is losing the GOP nomination and that's all you and Tom care about.
Hurry up Nov 2016!!
Be careful what you wish for Chuck, most of the the problems we are facing in this country started with the Republican policies from 1999-2008
Endless war, black sites and torture, off shoring jobs, doubling the deficit, mass phone and Internet surveillance, Banking and housing collapse, 9/11, massive fraud and no bid contracts, privatizing water supplies and toll roads, protecting GMO food production, incapacitating the EPA and FEMA, encouraging off shore tax havens, doubling the size of gov, allowing environmental degradation, and allowing major corporations to pay little to no tax.
If they become as powerful as they were it will be the end of the US.
Post a Comment
<< Home