PDA

View Full Version : Communism vs Liberalism



pooltchr
03-29-2008, 03:31 PM
45 Communist Goals


On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite and today's presidential candidates.

1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
<span style="color: #FF0000">More dialogue with our enemies? </span>

2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
<span style="color: #FF0000">More dialogue with our enemies? </span>

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength."
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Let's talk, not fight!</span>

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. <span style="color: #FF0000">
I think we are just about there already</span>

5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
<span style="color: #FF0000">We're there </span>

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Ditto </span>

7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N. <span style="color: #FF0000">
Why not just invite them to the White House? Oops, sorry, too late! </span>

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
<span style="color: #FF0000">At least someone got the wall down! </span>

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> But what about other countries who continue to test them?</span>

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> It's happening</span>

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Turn our security over to the UN?????? </span>

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
<span style="color: #FF0000">We don't outlaw anything...we seem to cater to other countries who would like nothing better than to see our country destroyed! </span>

13. Do away with loyalty oaths.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Get the pledge of alligence out of schools!</span>

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Freedom of information?</span>

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Hillary and Obama are both Socialists. That's a pretty good start.</span>


16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> ACLU????</span>

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Wow! We are already there! </span>

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Done! </span>

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> It gets more scarey as the list goes on.</span>

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
<span style="color: #FF0000">They have it. </span>

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Can you say Michael Moore? NBC? CBS? ABC? </span>

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression.


23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Check!</span>

24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Too late!</span>

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
<span style="color: #FF0000">The left seem to hate morality. </span>

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."
<span style="color: #FF0000">Another plank in the platform of the left. </span>

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
<span style="color: #FF0000">Now you understand why the left hates churches. </span>

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
<span style="color: #FF0000">Lets give the left a big victory on this one! </span>

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
<span style="color: #FF0000">The constitution is just a piece of paper???? </span>

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
<span style="color: #FF0000">After all, they couldn't know anything way back in 1776! </span>

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture."
<span style="color: #FF0000">Happening as we speak </span>

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Do I really need to comment on this one??? Can you say universal health care? </span>

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Discredited...not yet dismantled </span>

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Duh! Ya think??? </span>

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Not yet, but the left sure does like to condemn big business as the evil facists!</span>

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Sure he killed 25 people...but his mother abandoned him as a child. It's not his fault! </span>

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.
<span style="color: #FF0000">See above </span>

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
<span style="color: #FF0000">Hey, if the Prez can get an occasional BJ on the side, I guess it's ok for the rest of us! </span>

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> It takes a village!!!!!</span>

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> The more violence we are exposed to, the more it multiplies.</span>

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Pull out of Iraq now and let them deal with their own problems?????</span>

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Thank you, Mr. Carter!</span>

45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Give up our right to be self governed?</span>


The link is available here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/8/133540.shtml

<span style="color: #FF0000">Listen to Hillary and Obama. How many of these ideas do they support? How many of these things have already happened?
Steve</span>

Gayle in MD
03-30-2008, 07:20 AM
LMAO...amazing the thirst for skewing reality you display. Every one of these points suggest Republican actions, only they're take on it is skewed toward the rich, and paid for by the honest middle class AMerican People, who are paying for all their failures, including Iraq, the war of choice.

pooltchr
03-30-2008, 11:16 AM
I would expect this response from someone who is so blinded by their hatred of all things Republican that the truth staring you in the face can be totally ignored.
Steve

LWW
03-31-2008, 08:53 AM
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/northkorea_darkness.gif

Communism in North Korea vs capitalism in South Korea.

It's pretty obvious who's in the dark and who sees the light.

LWW

Gayle in MD
04-05-2008, 11:02 AM
Steve, I wish you wouldn't say that I hate all things Republican. I respect some Republicans, in fact. What I hate is what they've done to this country. Which leads me to ask you, why are you going to vote for a Republican, given the mess they've made of everything, their proven dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption? Are you going to do so because you hate Democrats?

I can't help but think that only the most biased of Americans could vote for Republicans after what we have all witnessed over these last, seven plus years.

Think about the big Republican attacks on Kerry, such as you, and other Republicans committed, calling him a flip flopper. Are you unaware of McCain's major flip flops?

Think about the circumstances of our economy. Would one have to be biased to vote for a man who admits that he knows nothing about economics?

Think about the fact that Iraq has continued to decline, and there exists no measurable gains in their willingness to step up to the plate, and fight for the future of their own country, or bury their grudges, for the sake of peace, and progress, yet McCain promises to stay a failed course, and even aims for more wars, promised more wars, and continues to dress up the realities on the ground in Iraq, void of any truthful analysis of what is really going on over there.

How can you accuse me of maintaining my disapproval over Republican performance, on the grounds of biased hatred of Republicans, after these many Republican failures, acts of corruption, spending extravagance, illegal activities, and failed foreign policy?

Republicans have defended everything that Bush has done, including helping him to continue to decieve all of us about the state of the war, and, blocked every attempt to address our problems here at home, take part in any accountability, end this failed occupation, and address our many pressing domestic economic problems, all to present a false representation of successful policy, in the interest of their personal political gain, while our kids are still dying in Iraq.

To suggest, after the blatant failures, exhorbitant spending, unprecedented debt and corruption, that an American who is against Republicans for reasons other than their poor performance, is surely, a suspension of critical thinking, and an extremely biased view.

When eighty-one percent of our country believes that we're heading in the wrong direction, and sixty nine percent say they're worse off now than they were when Clinton left office, and your Republican President has the lowest approval rating since the depression era, don't you think that it's time you recognized that my views about Republican incompetence bare a mark of reality, and reasonable analysis, rather than just being the thoughts of some uninformed, biased voter who only votes out of hatred, and not out of a reasonable analysis of performance?

I believe that anyone who would defend Republican performance, and policy, after what we've all watched over these last seven plus years, is in fact more guilty of being biased, and more likely to maintain their views out of petty hatred of the opposing party, than one who can easily point to incompetence and corruption, extravagance, and deceit, to support their political decision to oppose a candidate who represents more of the same, in fact, promises more of the same.

To accuse Democrats of communism, because they believe that the common man is as important as the wealthy man, that individuals are as worthy of aid as corporations, and that war should be a last resort, human rights must be protected, government should play a role in benefiting those of her citizens who are in great need, and that the role of government should first protect its own citizens, since charity should begin at home, smacks of hatred, IMO.

I don't hate Republicans, and I don't hate people, but I do hate the things they say and do, at times, and I am far from the extreme, at present, according to statistical analysis.

I'm quite sure that eighty-one percent, represents Americans of all political persuasions, not just Democrats, who hate Republicans, as you suggest. And for you to write such a post, accusing the opposing party of communism, when you support an administration which is compared to Communistic, Imperialist behavior, more so than any other administration in our history, is in fact, an extremist's representation, biased, and an emotionally based partisanship opinion if I've ever witnessed one.

BTW, the greatest number of earmarks were from Republicans, the top three earmark offenders, all Republicans.

There comes a time when reasonable people realize that their former position may have been wrong, and that they should re-think what they once experienced as correct. Obviously, many Republicans in our country are embracing that very course of action. Perhaps you should re-think some of your own very biased reactions to others, like me, whom you have long endeavored to paint as unreasonable, biased, and full of hatred, when it is obvious, that my views about Republicans, and predictions of the results of their policies, in fact, had some merit all along.

Gayle in Md..... very proud of Republicans like Gordon Smith, and Chuck Hagle, who put our troops, and our country, above their personal, political best interests. And, still repulsed by those Republicans, like John McCain, Jeff Sessions, and Lindsey Graham, who continue to skew the truth, deny the facts, and attempt to manipulate the public into believing a fantasy which is against our own best interests, our troop's best interests, and against the Republican, Independent, Libertarian and Democratic interests. We're ALL Americans. The man who planned and led the attack on America, on 9/11, STILL, has not been brought to justice, and still plans our future attacks. He is not in Iraq.

"And we're going to get the people who brought these buildings down."

George Bush, September, 2001

sack316
04-05-2008, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, I wish you wouldn't say that I hate Republicans. I respect some Republicans, in fact.
</div></div>

I'll vouch for that. Though Gayle and I have always had some political and opinionated differences, she is well aware I am a republican. And I consider our relationship to be a very good one and consider her a close friend... and I feel I am not out of line in saying that she thinks the same of me. I'm sure there will be plenty of times where we will still butt heads on some issues, but every email I recieve from her includes the word "love" as she closes, and vice versa.

I'll make a confession here, it took quite some time for her to grow on me... getting to know someone via posts on a message board doesn't really give a true reflection on a person I suppose. But eventually I opened my eyes enough to notice that all her thoughts and opinions, whether I agree with them or not, are her feelings and done out of her love for this country and desire to see it bettered in her eyes. And that is something I will always respect in anybody. And for the same token I will gladly say the same for LWW, or anyone else on this board. I don't know a single one of us who doesn't love our land... we just all have differing opinions on what it will take to get this country where we know it should be, and that destination is probably the one thing we all actually do agree on.

Sack

sack316
04-05-2008, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BTW, the greatest number of earmarks were from Republicans, the top three earmark offenders, all Republicans.

</div></div>

True, BUT...

Both parties came in for criticism, with the Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, topping the Republicans in spending.

The Democrats were behind 5,199 projects worth $5.5 billion, while the Republicans earmarked 3,408 projects worth $4.4 billion, the citizen's group said.

And in a sign bipartisanship is not dead, the two parties jointly backed 2,518 projects worth $3.8 billion."

"The three senators running for president were not among the top targets of criticism, and one got an entirely clean bill from the watchdog group.

"Sen. [Barack] Obama had 53 earmarks worth $97 million dollars, and Sen. [Hillary] Clinton had 281 earmarks worth $296 million. Sen. Obama recently said he would not request any project for this upcoming fiscal year," said Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

"And of course Sen. [John] McCain has never requested them and he won't be doing so in 2009. So now the question is if Sen. Clinton will join the other major candidates in saying that she will not request any earmarks for 2009."

taken from CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/pork.spending/index.html)

Sack

pooltchr
04-05-2008, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, I wish you wouldn't say that I hate all things Republican. I respect some Republicans, in fact. What I hate is what they've done to this country. Which leads me to ask you, why are you going to vote for a Republican, given the mess they've made of everything, their proven dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption? Are you going to do so because you hate Democrats?

<span style="color: #FF0000">I think I've made it quite clear that I don't hold any of the candidates from either party in very high regard. That being said, I have a greater concern over the socialist philosophy espoused by Clinton and Obama, than I do over McCain's idology. My biggest concern with McCain is his stand on illegal immigration. I don't think he will take the steps necessary to close our boarders to the illegal invasion taking place over the past 15 years. True, our country is not moving in the direction I would like to see, but I believe both Obama and Clinton would have us on the fast track to Socialism. But then, maybe it will take that to cause the American public to see what is going on with our country and take a stand to get it back on track. None of the candidates we have running right now appear willing to do it, so I suspect we will be looking at a long 4 years regardless of the outcome in November.
</span>



To accuse Democrats of communism, because they believe that the common man is as important as the wealthy man, that individuals are as worthy of aid as corporations, and that war should be a last resort, human rights must be protected, government should play a role in benefiting those of her citizens who are in great need, and that the role of government should first protect its own citizens, since charity should begin at home, smacks of hatred, IMO.
<span style="color: #FF0000">I know you probably didn't read my post, or at least take time to think about the content. 45 steps the communists had as a plan to bring down our country. Look at how many of them have been or are being implimented. Then consider which party is more responsible for those things happening. </span>


BTW, the greatest number of earmarks were from Republicans, the top three earmark offenders, all Republicans. <span style="color: #FF0000"> And of the 3 presidential candidates in the running, two of them are very high on the list, and one is at the very bottom. You don't want to discuss earmarks if you are supporting Hillary.</span>

it is obvious, that my views about Republicans, and predictions of the results of their policies, in fact, had some merit all along.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> I'm glad you think so</span>

Gayle in Md </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Steve</span>

eg8r
04-05-2008, 07:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I've made it quite clear that I don't hold any of the candidates from either party in very high regard. </div></div> Steve, you can say this till you are blue in the face but Gayle will never accept it. Until you abolish all things republican AND state the dems are the right way to go she will never remember anything else you say that might not be supportive for the Reps. Remember, we have stated for years that we could not stand behind W's spending policies yet the woman keeps saying we support his spending habits.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And of the 3 presidential candidates in the running, two of them are very high on the list, and one is at the very bottom. You don't want to discuss earmarks if you are supporting Hillary.
</div></div> It is just pure stupidity for a lefty to bring up earmarks as a reason to vote Dem in this election. Clinton is the biggest abuser of earmarks among the candidates.

eg8r

eg8r
04-05-2008, 07:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both parties came in for criticism, with the Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, topping the Republicans in spending.

The Democrats were behind 5,199 projects worth $5.5 billion, while the Republicans earmarked 3,408 projects worth $4.4 billion, the citizen's group said.
</div></div> Too bad you did not make the text for CNN in bold Gayle is probably going to call you out for going to "faux news" for your stats. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

sack316
04-05-2008, 11:20 PM
yeah, I'm usually bad about linking to my information, but I felt this time I should include it

Sack

LWW
04-06-2008, 06:46 AM
[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is just pure stupidity for a lefty to bring up earmarks as a reason to vote Dem in this election. Clinton is the biggest abuser of earmarks among the candidates.

eg8r </div></div>
It is pure stupidity to bring up any reason to vote for either D in this election ... and the R ain't a gem either.

LWW

wolfdancer
04-06-2008, 03:15 PM
Gayle, I'm avoiding...trying to...the political "debates" here....while that post deserved a rebuttal....I'm more troubled by the belief system that would inspire someone to author such flawed
reasoning.
While he blames all these wrongs on the liberals....seems to me that since WWII...we have had more then our fair share of Republican Administrations.....
Were they that weak and ineffective that they couldn't oppose the "Communist" doctrines of the left from being enacted?

pooltchr
04-06-2008, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> since WWII...we have had more then our fair share of Republican Administrations.....
Were they that weak and ineffective that they couldn't oppose the "Communist" doctrines of the left from being enacted? </div></div>
Wolf,
I'm glad you at least agree that many of these programs originated from the left. Programs like this can gain support simply because they aren't always market in a totally accurate way. Take universal health care for example. While many of us understand that this is not "free health care for everybody", a good number of somewhat less educated voters don't understand the concept. They think the Dems want to give them something for nothing. Just as we are starting to understand that Social Security has some very big costs associated with it, the health care programs being marketed by Obama and Clinton are going to have a huge cost to all of us.
When the government gives anything away, they usually take something of far greater value.
It would have been nice if someone had the guts to tell the truth somewhere along the way, but the truth often isn't popular and rarely gets votes.
Steve

wolfdancer
04-06-2008, 08:29 PM
Steve, I was being sarcastic, and you're trying to convince the wrong person about the evils of these programs. I have Medicare, and receive SS checks. National health care has it's problems, but many people can't afford health insurance. I'd be surprised if anyone believes these "socialist/communist" programs are free, or without problems, but I guess you believe folks on the Democratic side think that they are.
I wonder if you would also object to feeding the hundreds of thousands of elderly homeless that would line the streets if it were not for SS, and Medicare????
The UN, dealing with the Russians, and the Chinese, may also go against your creed, but at least we aren't at war with those countries. AND ain't the Chinese financing your President's war?
Sorry that some of your hard earned $$ is being used on these programs instead of going to big business,insiders, profiteers, etc....

wolfdancer
04-06-2008, 08:58 PM
Don't take my last reply as initiating any kind of political dialogue. I'm against just about everything you believe in...the war, Bush, and Wal-Mart's right to exploit the workers. You're a Republican; /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif I'm a humanist /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif ,...we have no median point to debate politics.

LWW
04-07-2008, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While many of us understand that this is not "free health care for everybody", a good number of somewhat less educated voters don't understand the concept. They think the Dems want to give them something for nothing.
Steve </div></div>
If you pay no tax and have no skin in the game they did give you something for nothing.

LWW

pooltchr
04-07-2008, 04:23 AM
SS and Medicare most definitely help a lot of people. (my mother included). The issue is the way the government operates the programs. They move the money around, borrow from it, and say they will pay it back. They never do. Given their track record on the way they handle these programs, I have great reservations about putting our health care in their hands.
(BTW, I am a conservative who happens to be registered Republican)
Steve

Gayle in MD
04-08-2008, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I've made it quite clear that I don't hold any of the candidates from either party in very high regard. That being said, I have a greater concern over the socialist philosophy espoused by Clinton and Obama, than I do over McCain's idology. <span style="color: #000066">REally? The man has stated we mut win in Iraq, when all advisors and experts agree that we can't win in Iraq. Win isn't even a word to consider using when discussing Iraq, where we have only to choose between a few of the least disasterous possibilities, and all agree, that our armed forces are broken, and stretched beyond any possibility of continuing on this failed foreign policy. </span> My biggest concern with McCain is his stand on illegal immigration. <span style="color: #000066">REally, well, given George Will's statements last sunday, that McCain's statements about how to handle the economy, and our present recession, were adolecent, at best, maybe you should re-consider which of our present dire circumstances should come first in making your decision. </span> I don't think he will take the steps necessary to close our boarders to the illegal invasion taking place over the past 15 years. <span style="color: #000066">No, I don't either, since Reagan and Bush I and II have proven that the Republican Party is all for illegal Immigration, and also for amnesty for all those who occupy our country illegally, his stand on Immigration, as a REpublican, will likely continue with the Republican Philosophy of plenty of illegals around to drive down wages, and prop up profits. </span> True, our country is not moving in the direction I would like to see, but I believe both Obama and Clinton would have us on the fast track to Socialism. <span style="color: #000066">I think you can rest easy that our Government won't have enough money after we get rid of George Bush, to be able to dole out money to anyone, for anything. </span> But then, maybe it will take that to cause the American public to see what is going on with our country and take a stand to get it back on track. <span style="color: #000066">Rest assured, 81% have already reached that point of view, and that intention, hence, they won't be voting a Republican into office for a while, nor even be able to get away with throwing another election, or using the Supreme Court to appoint their man. </span> None of the candidates we have running right now appear willing to do it, so I suspect we will be looking at a long 4 years regardless of the outcome in November. <span style="color: #000066">Yes, I'd say, after Bush has driven this country right into the pits, it's going to be a very long four years, and probably much longer than that, before we can correct all the disasters created by Bush, the Neocon War Mongers, like McCain, and the pseudo conservative big spenders who were still spending like drunken sailors, even after decades of earmarking their various favored lobbyists into huge profits, while neglecting our infrastructure, the Middle Class, the occupying illegals, and proving their complete incompetence for running this government. Funny, how so many Bush supporters pick and choose what they will focus on, but I suppose life is difficult for them, now? With disaster all around us, I can only say that McCain certainly represents more of the same, in every way, and what can one think about voters who would support such a candidate? While I'm not thrilled with any of them either, and none of them were my original choice, I do think that Clinton supporters can look back to eight years of a pretty peaceful, economically pleasant, time, when we were not accumulating horrendous debt to our potential enemies, nor mortgaging our childrens futures. And that brings me back to my original request, which you ignored. To Say that I hate all things Republican, when there is such obvious proof all around us of the vast Republican created messes we face presently, and then follow that up, given our circumstances, saying you will vote for a man who promises more of the same, using illegal immigration as your main concern, is surely a stand which one would think would render you a bit hypocritical in accusing me of making my own decisions out of hatred for the opposing party. I do believe the results of Republican led Government which we face presently, are such that going out to vote Republican is not only illogical, but potentially nationally fatal, given our circumstances. Doing so would exempt ones right to accuse others of any concentrated, blind partisanship, wouldn't you think? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know you probably didn't read my post, or at least take time to think about the content. 45 steps the communists had as a plan to bring down our country. Look at how many of them have been or are being implimented. Then consider which party is more responsible for those things happening.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Sorry Steve. I do respect your opinion, but I find this sentence incredible, particularly since George Bush has sold this country out to China, India, and others, and mortgaged off our children's and grand children's futures, hel the door open to the illegals, sent trillions to our enemies, and armed just about every fanatical organization, save Iran, on the horizon, while subsidizing big busines up the wing wang, and the country has been sliding into financial ruin throughout his tenure. If ever there was a picture of any organization taking us from within, as the communists promised, the present results of this Republican led fiasco is surely the best example I have witnessed in my lifetime. No, I recall the Clinton administration, which payed down debt, gained allies, focussed on al Qaeda, and warned George Bush to make al Qaeda his most pressing objective. I recall that we were far better off then, than we are right now. Perhaps you suffer from whqat is being called Republican Amnesia? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And of the 3 presidential candidates in the running, two of them are very high on the list, and one is at the very bottom. You don't want to discuss earmarks if you are supporting Hillary. <span style="color: #000066">Steve, I did read it, completely, and read it in awe, I might add. Earmarks are far from my greatest concern at present, however, since they are your focus, I suggest you consider that after many years of the opposing party having first dibs at the spending, when the other party gets back in, they usually do have more spending projects on their list, which have been waiting for money from the government. As most of us realize, all earmarks are not bad. The Federal Government does have to spend SOME of our tax dollars on runnign this country, after all, we cannot spend it all on killing people, as your party prefers to do. </span>

It is obvious, that my views about Republicans, and predictions of the results of their policies, in fact, had some merit all along.


I'm glad you think so

<span style="color: #000066">Me too! I'd hate to have to be one of those who had supported George Bush, who had ridiculed the naysayers over these last eight years, given all the messes we are facing at present! </span>

</div></div>

wolfdancer
04-08-2008, 08:18 AM
Gayle, good post.
Seems like the syllogism that you are debating is..
Democrats = Liberals = Socialists/Communists.
And with that mindset.....where they are more concerned about what the left will do, then what Bush has already done............................................

Gayle in MD
04-08-2008, 02:39 PM
It's hilarious, isn't it? Here we have an administration that pays off news organizations, plants phony reporters in the press room, outs CIA Secret Agents for exposing their lies, nad completely ignores the wishes of the American People, running their administration like something between an imperial dictatorship, and a theocratic facist based Monarchy, and yet some people still support them, for a tax cut, even if they are borrowing money from a communist country to pay for it!

INCREDIBLE!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

Gayle in MD
04-08-2008, 03:04 PM
Dear Sack,
Thanks for your kind words, and yes, we're good friends, and as I have often written, "I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in Philosohpy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

I've been watching HBO's series, John Adams, and it's interesting how our founders embraced the process of dissent, and also of heated exchanges between the opposing sides of an issue. It seems that after 9/11, some in our country believed that those American traditions were signs of anarchy! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif


I agree with you, Sack, and I'm quite sure each of us here, loves our country, and wants what is best for America. I know I do, and I just wish more people would watch their government at work, live, on C-Span, and do more concentrated anaylisis on their own, through reading and study, instead of allowing the info-news cable channels to do their thinking for them.

Who's LWW? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

sack316
04-08-2008, 03:30 PM
Interesting you should mention history Gayle, as the class I am currently in this session is a detailed history of Alabama. Unfortunately due to work at the moment, I have been unable to do much more than the bare minimum in my studies thus far... but at this point we are up to the radical reconstruction era after the Civil War.

And I tell ya, the face of politics, the issues, the disagreements, the differences in opinions... the passions of the people one side or the other--- is practically no different today than it was well over a century ago. Of course some of the issues themselves are different, but overall at it's core I'd almost dare say nothing has changed. And as interesting as that is, at the same time it's kind of sad when you think about it.

Hmmm, I dunno, I can't help but think there has got to be a better way. The more I look at things, through history and current events on both sides of the fence... the more I really do think of getting into politics, slapping everyone in the face and starting over fresh. A mulligan of sorts, admitting that while with a few exceptions we've always seemingly had the best of intentions at heart... yet screwed the whole thing up, everything. Much like at work, when sometimes something is so messed up the best solution is not to just fix it, but to tear it down and build it over again... I'm really starting to think that something we'll eventually have to do.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-10-2008, 09:09 AM
Well friend, I tend to think that what we need is a resurgence of integrity in our government. Earmarks should be removed from all of our bills, and we should have a separate system of financing foreign policies, from domestice policy.

I think, also, that this process of using signing statements to avoid following the law, should be ended. I believe that public financing should be implimented for campaigns, and that any requests from corporations should be made in front of the cameras, with laws which deny our lawmakers any opportunity to socialize with lobbyists.

I think that America needs a president who can renew our original humanitarian reputation in the world, and our anti torture stance must be strongly renewed, and Bush's policies in the regard should be denounced publically by all of our representatives.

Those American rights which have been so trampled by this administration, along with the checks and balances intended by our founders, must be restored. Our Constitution has been trashed by this administration, and I see that as disturbing as the surrendering of our laws, our rights, and our failure to keep the foreign agreements which we signed onto so many years ago.

Religion should go back to being the personal issue it once was, and Racism, sexism, and anti gay philosophies must be redefined as the unamerican activity which it truly is.

But, I do believe in the American People, and believe that they will rise up in the next election, and vote against the policies which have torn our country apart during these last eight years. I trust that we have had a tragic review of the results of attempted nation building, and that we will more vigoriously address the facsist signs which we see growing in our country.

I can only say that I view these last eight years as another long national nightmare. I will be devastated, no doubt, if I must watch voters come out of the voting booth having voted according to party objectives, rather than voting according to what is best for our country at this time. Although we may all differ about some of what that entails, I hope that Americans will sort out the worst of those offensive attacks on our Constitution, and the neglect of keeping our international oaths, and remove those who supported the destruction of those very important guidelines for interntaional peace.

Love,
Gayle

Deeman3
04-10-2008, 09:20 AM
Gayle,

Would it not be nice to have such an open government where all activities are shown in detail, such as spending, bills with no riders attached, open accounts on siphoning off of social programs and full disclosure on all contributions for all to see every day?

I have often though, with all the websites out there, someone could do a better non-partisan job of this. Some do o.k. in fact checking and such but most have an agenda, either right or left taht "shades" the data they present. After looking at, for instance, the practices of the credit card companies, I see that all the current candidates are in the tank for them so nothing, for instance, will ever be done. Of course, there are tons of other open issues that could be examined by both side while our government decides to spend time on steroids and other photo op pursuits.

It will be dis-heartening for me, no matter which set of crooks get in. I am appalled at the weakness of all the candidates.

sack316
04-10-2008, 09:42 AM
One of my big thoughts in recent years is actually having a government "of" the people (oddly enough, something like it was intended to be). I mean, it's obvious why we had to have a government made up the way it is... in the past we needed people to represent our voices and as such we vote in our officials to congress and the house etc. And up until recently this was probably the best way to go, as making a trip to a voting booth to chime in on many of the issues would have not only been much slower, but unreasonable too.

But in today's technological age, it's perfectly feasable that the individual can profess their opinion. Even the poorest of urban areas, and the most secluded of rural areas, can access the internet either at home, at a local library, or a school. What I would like to see first, is a much smaller government-- with much less power given to Washington, State Capitals, etc. and more power being put into the hands of the individual. That's been an issue for years and years, and these days it's a project that can be done.

I too have faith in the American people, and would feel much better about decisions being put in the hands of millions, rather than blindly trusting a select few who may or may not have their personal agendas at stake in their policy making--- and that's a shot at either side there. Vote Sack people, and it's a vote for yourself! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Deeman3
04-10-2008, 10:22 AM
Sack,

The way I see it, the government os so outlandish, we don't think anything is rediculuous anymore or even if we do, there are not enough people enraged at any given time to have an impact. If I say "Hillary is getting too many earmarks" that is a political statement and roughly half the country says, "She is not much worse than the next clown." If I say Bush wasted too many tax dollars, some will say, "Yes, but think about how much more the Democrats will spend."

Smaller government? I don't think so when the entire basis of being in Washington is to petetuate your survival and making governemnt grow with additonal slugs just buys you more political power. No one even campains on that anymore! Not any serious candidate and we are conditioned to accept that a little less waste is somehow more acceptable than more.

Say one word about teachers who can't read, teach or hold a job in any other field and teachers, ex-teachers and union leaders will jump all over you saying its more money! That will solve it! Of course, that's the last think that improves a breauacracy.

The one war we have lost and could save billions on is the war on drugs. It now costs us more than almost anything but education and has been a dismal failure. Why do we keep doing it? It funds tons of police salaries, jails and courts. Just try to get a saner policy even looked at and it's like you questioned a person's sexuality....

Those of us who have been fortunate in life will survive but the poor are now being presented less and less opportunity to get out and that is how many want it. Not the wealthy but the politicians. They must control people and all these costs are the real things that mire the poor. Many will now jump on this a GWB is bad but every politician out there is fostering this mentality and it can't continue while appeasing other countries, other cultural expectations.

Have just one politician say something of real content and state the real problems we face and I'll support them. All we see now, fomr them all is lip service and popular appeal sound bites. NAFTA? Get real. That is a political football and anyone who does not know that is not familiar with the program. It is funny that attention is on that right now. After Penn. it will be another lame non-issue. Pandering, there ought to be a gold metal for that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
04-10-2008, 11:02 AM
indeed my friend, and wouldn't you like to be able to say that as opposed to hoping Mr. Sessions or Mr. Shelby does for you?

You are right though that in a sense just about anything that happens is pretty well taken as status quo. I don't think that's right. I don't think any result from the next election will fix much, nor do I think the previous eight years up until 2000 was that "somewhere that's green" people are tending to think of it as. The mindset seems to be that just because it may have been "better" that it was "good".

You know, I may have mispoke when I said "smaller" government, because in actuality my ideal situation would be the biggest government in the world---depending on how you look at it. Smaller in that the number of individuals with high and mighty power would be lessened, bigger in that the millions of individuals who make up this land would share power and responsibility.

For example, I'd rather an issue on education in Alabama be in the hands of Sack, Deeman, teachers, parents, etc. of this great state, then dependant upon Bob Riley and the powers that be. And in that example, I actually do think the Alabama government has been doing a good job... it's just still a matter of "good" or "better" being different than what could be wrong or right.

As I said, the way things are would be the way things had to always be... but we can be so much better and more in line with what democracy was intended to be if we catch the system up with what our abilities are in present day.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-14-2008, 07:28 AM
Well, yes, I think it should be that way indeed, Everything should be completely open for investigation, how they spend, and all that they do. this government has become far too secret, and, well, not to say that both parties have not used too much secrecy, but I do think that even a Republican would admit, that this administration has taken secrecy to a whole new standard.

I'd love to have seen better candidates on both sides, and I agree with you, there are several others I would have liked to see running, that didn't even run, but I still maintain that McCain would be by far the worst possible thing that could happen. At this point, it might be worth while to take a look back, to see how Republicans led us to this point, and to recall the real reasons why the Neocons, and the Jewish owned American Press, which comprises a large part of the huge Israeli Lobby on K. Street, still, began to hate the Clintons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.” —Donald Rumsfeld



Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.



With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.



That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2177

</div></div>


And This:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick






</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet
by JEREMY SCAHILL
August 02, 2002

Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
“Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.” —Donald Rumsfeld



Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.



With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.



That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.



Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”



Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”



In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”



The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”



Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.”



Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”



Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action.



Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”



A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.



Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:



“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”



In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”



In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”



In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.



Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.



Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”



In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.



Washington now speaks of Saddam’s threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”



But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld’s voice at the very moment when Iraq’s alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.



Jeremy Scahill is an independent journalist. He reports frequently for Free Speech Radio News and Democracy Now! In May and June 2002, he reported from Iraq. He can be reached at jeremybgd@yahoo.com.
</div></div>

I think it is quite clear that we took the wrong turn all the way back to Reagan, through Bush I and Two, and only during Bill Clinton's Administaration was Saddam handled correctly.

I would more than opt for a President who had Bill Clinton as their most trusted advisor for the next eight years, than anyone from the Republican Party, from which so many secretive and damaging actions took place from Reagan on, through the rise of the Neocons, both Bush I and II, and led us to this point. It has been strictly Republican Policies which caused Saddam'
s prominence in the first place, and now, Maliki has shown himself to be corrupt. All these actions were from Republicans, straight through to John McCain, who use military force, rather than sanctions, diplomacy and caution, as Bill Clinton, in teh case of Iraq, and Robert and John Kennedy used in the Cuban Missile Crises.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
04-14-2008, 11:18 AM
have you cleared this post beforehand.....with our "chimp"???????

Deeman3
04-14-2008, 12:22 PM
I'm just curious if that post gets tthe Gold Metal for length? Has there been longer ones? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
04-14-2008, 02:13 PM
It might be long, but it was interesting.....she included as many quotes as possible to keep El A'hole busy all day trying to come up with a reply

Deeman3
04-14-2008, 03:06 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

You know us Bushites don't read.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 06:39 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Which one? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 06:42 AM
Probably not. Guess I thought with all the disaster we're facing at present, maybe some here might be willing to spend a few moments reading some of the facts about how we got to this point, before this election comes up.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Deeman3
04-15-2008, 07:25 AM
Most of the issues I have with Bush is over spending mixed in with a little mis-management of the war on terror.

Now, no matter which of the democrats we might select, we will be spending much more. Yes, it will be some spending in a different direction, but massive additional debt one the less. For instance, Bill Clinton goverened from a left center but fairly responsible fiscal position with Republicans watching the spending. With Nancy Pelosi and Obama or even Clinton, the spending will only continue at a larger pace.

Pouring more fuel on the fire won't get us where I think we should go and taxing us for even more wasteful spending will not help recover the economy. You and I know Clinton rode the Technology Bubble for most of his two terms. Hillary won't bring that back and the protectionist trade policy she is now touting won't bring the steel industry back as she has promised. That is as gone as Hillary's hunting days....

Deeman3
04-15-2008, 07:25 AM
Most of the issues I have with Bush is over spending mixed in with a little mis-management of the war on terror.

Now, no matter which of the democrats we might select, we will be spending much more. Yes, it will be some spending in a different direction, but massive additional debt one the less. For instance, Bill Clinton goverened from a left center but fairly responsible fiscal position with Republicans watching the spending. With Nancy Pelosi and Obama or even Clinton, the spending will only continue at a larger pace.

Pouring more fuel on the fire won't get us where I think we should go and taxing us for even more wasteful spending will not help recover the economy. You and I know Clinton rode the Technology Bubble for most of his two terms. Hillary won't bring that back and the protectionist trade policy she is now touting won't bring the steel industry back as she has promised. That is as gone as Hillary's hunting days....

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can our leaders celebrate this defusion of power as effective state building? More accurately, it' described as placing the United States astride several civil wars, not just one, and it allows all sides to consolidate, re-arm, refill their financial coffers at U. S, expense.

General Odem
</div></div>

Dear Deeman,
IMO, there is no spending as bad as spending that gives money to those who have killed our soldiers, which we are presently doing. That money will eventually be used to kill more of them. Of all my concerns, my greatest concern is to get our troops out of Iraq. That completely supercedes everything else, everything.

As for Bill Clinton's administration, I believe he was far more responsible than any of the other recent Republican administrations. Bill Clinton was a student of the issues. He was a man who read everything, all sides of every issue. He sought out opinions before making decisions, rather than formulating policy in advance of investigating everything that could go wrong with one policy, or another.

I believe that neither McCain, nor Obama, would do that but that Hillary would. She, too, is a student of policy.

As for spending, I'd much prefer more money going to our citizens, and our infrastructure, than wasted in wars, or given out to corporate millionaire CEO's. That seems to be where the subsidies land, into the retirement pockets of corporate CEO's.

Our circumstances, now, with a broken army, a failed foreign policy, huge debts, foreign and domestic, huge and on-going job losses, and a declining infrastructure, which is truly alarmingly unsafe across our great country, would seem to be a logical target for increasing jobs. In fact, this is one of Hillary's promises which I find to be most reasonable.

As for Democratic spending, per say, I am of the opinion that the recipients are such that our society as a whole, improves, from investing in the common people of America. We are living in a time when subsidies for corporations, and bail outs for big business, provides less value to the citizens of our country, than ever before.

Our tax policy should encourage keeping jobs here in America, rather than encouraging corporate America to outsource everything.

I realize that Republicans seem to jump on the idea that our jobs are gone forever, but I don't buy that. With a different central policy, and a solution for our health care crises, along with a committment to address the re-building of our infrastructure, thus providing more jobs, we could enjoy a huge resurgence in our economy by investing in America. Let's face it, we're spending twelve billion dollars a month in Iraq, borrowing the money from China, and others, who are collecting interest on our debt. What is it about that policy that you like? Please explain how doing so advantages our country, our economy? One advantage to solving our health care crises is that that would be one less reason for manufacturing business to leave our country. The tax cuts should go to the corporations who stay here, not the ones who leave! Big Oil should be forced to either produce, or get taxed for not producing, not be subdized while they gouge the rest of us, and fail to refine enough oil to prevent a depression! Why are we giving them money, EXXON particularly, when they bring about the shortages intentionally, in order to drive up the prices?

I want to see an end to Nation Building, and a resurgence of re-building our own nation. I will not complain about what any administration spends, as long as it is spent to advantage America, and when we're able, and strong again, to continue to do more to help the starving masses around the world who are being left to die of hunger. We pay farmers to stop growing food, while the world starves! If you just look at projected financial gains for Iraq for next year, and then look at ours, how can anyone justify what we're spending in Iraq?

McCain, will continue on Bush's course. How in the world anyone can vote for a man who would do so is truly beyond me! The campaign in Iraq was a mistake. If McCain can't even admit that, then he can't begin to change the messes we're in, right now, let alone what we will fact in the future.

All in all, Bill Clinton was a genius, compared to any Republican Administration in the last thirty-five years. His figures stand up just fine against Reagan, Bush I or Bush II, in jobs, business, and deficits, Clinton did a fine job, we surely weren't paying killers, to stop killing American troops, while American troops were willing to make the last full measure of devotion for their benefit!

I do not forget who propped up Saddam. I do not forget which party truly created this disaster in Iraq, in Afghanistan, with the talliban, al Qaeda, the contras, drug dealers, I cannot support a party which practices hidden government, and has no scruples about doing business with the worst of the worst, and then others must die for their poor judgement at a later date.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
04-15-2008, 08:44 AM
Gayle, good post there... but are you listening to McCain's speech in Pittsburgh right now? He actually has covered most of those issues which you mentioned woudn't change under him. He criticized both sides of the fence as far as wasteful spending goes. He gave a realistic view of taxation regarding both the individual and cooperations. Including a plan for lessening the burden on middle class, and yes even (gasp) easing taxes on business, development, and ingenuity... with a strong theory on the how's and why's of creating and keeping jobs here, rather than outsourcing.

I won't go into every detail of the speech, I won't even say everything he claims to hope to accomplish can happen. But I will say the things you mention that would be ignored were covered in it. And as opposed to simply touting that change needs to happen, he also laid out ideas on HOW he hopes to accomplish these changes... and the "how" made sense. Something I've felt lacking in either of his future opponents--- especially Obama. What a concept though... a campaign speech illustrating the problems with ALL members of government on any side of the fense, laying out current problems, proposing ideas for solutions for these issues, AND laying a groundwork for a plan to fix these problems. Amazing!

I'd also like to note he called out other republicans and their practices that have blurred their party lines via "leftist" actions and tendencies as far as spending goes.

Now, I haven't been huge on McCain thus far, but his speech today was the first one I've been able to just sit down and listen to in it's entirety. And I gotta give it to the man, he made sense and he nailed it.

Sack

Deeman3
04-15-2008, 08:53 AM
Gayle,

You do make many good points. I just don't agree that any of the candidates will really help anyone but themnselves. They all have too much ambition and not enough concern for the country.

Maybe Hillary would be a good administrator but I feel she will spend much more than we can afford on social programs. The war is expensive and has much waste but pales in comparison to the programs she is proposing.

I, for one, beleive it will be a choice betwen McCain and Obama but I have been wrong before. If she makes the general I will really listen to her proposals and give them a fair hearing. No matter what you think of me, I want the best for our country as well. I bet, if you and I could ask the candidates the questions at an open debate, some real answers would be forthcoming or someone would be dead in the water. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 09:29 AM
Well, friend, our government makes all of us mad a times. Our democracy isn't perfect, and secrets are truly its greatest enemy. We do have patriots in all walks of life who study the moves made by our government, and many of them are non profit organizations, who volumteen their time, and they do a fine job, for the most part. Partisanship is a good thing, as it is forever exposing the sins of the opposer, but in these times, when the news media has adapted a form of info-tainment, one must read, and one mus watch our government at work, if we are to know much about the various people who participate in running it, and who eventually run for office.

I, personally, think that a stubborn president, who doesn't care about polls, is a bad thing. I realize that some people admire that very stance, but I do not. I think that the President should take into account how the majority of our people feel about his policies. I think that is one thing about McCain that I don't like. He seems to be the sort of man who would be very stubborn about his policies. And, I believe that when a President is more interested in securing power, than he is in solving problems, we end up with just what we have right now, a mess!

While my preferred candidates either did not run, or did not make it through the primaries, there is only one who I could feel safe about voting for, and you know who that is. I don't think there is much chance, but who knows, many things can happen, as we have seen so many times in the past.


I am sorry that you're feeling disheartened, but I can certainly understand why you would, and I have pangs of the same thing, myself. I want so much to see the right person in there. I do believe that this is a very important election. I'm hoping that people like Karl Rove stay out of it, for the most part, as we don't need people like him, working the public, and distracting us from the issues. I hope that as we near the end of the primary season, that if Hillary does not make it, that I can find some reason to vote for one of the candidates, because as of right now, I couldn't vote for either Obama, or McCain, and it would be the first election of my adulthood in which I did not vote. As of now, and if I had to vote today, I'd have to vote for Ralph Nader, as I could not vote for either Obama, or McCain. I just could not. IMO, one would be just as bad as the other, and I think this is the first time I've ever felt that way.


There were great men who laid the groundwork for our government, and they covered just about everything. The trick is to prevent others from dis-mantling their efforts, and to maintain the Constitution as it was written, to the best of our ability.

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 09:35 AM
I will try to catch it this evening. BTW, I suppose, everyone knows, that most of the speeches made by the candidates are aired on C-Span in the evenings, but in case anyone didn't know, they are available, and it's a whole lot more enriching than watching the info-tainment cable news channels. Also, the President's Press conferences, and the daily Press Room news briefings, are aired on C-Span.

Thanks for the tip.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 09:41 AM
Wanted to mention again, we should all try to catch Frontline tonight, at 9 pm, for the program about Health Care options, and how health care programs operate in other countries. I think this is one of the things over which many Americans are confused, and this program should be very thorough in explaining the various ways that other countries handle their health care programs, which work best, and how their citizens feel about them, including the costs/benefit ratios.

The Program is called, "Sick Around The World."

love,
Gayle

sack316
04-15-2008, 09:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ... and it's a whole lot more enriching than watching the info-tainment cable news channels...

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

Agreed 100%. So much better to hear the whole thing straight from the horses mouth than it is to hear snippets that are chosen for us as an analist talks over it with their take on what was said. We can hear what they are saying for goodness sake, if only they'd shut up! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

P.S. I'll make a deal with ya Gayle... you listen to this one, and I'll promise to listen to the next Clinton speech (you may have to key me in when it's airing) and then we'll have a chat about what we liked from each other's candidate... just for a change of pace /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 09:48 AM
You got it, friend. As long as we're learning, we can't be going in the wrong direction. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Love,
Gayle

eg8r
04-15-2008, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So much better to hear the whole thing straight from the horses mouth than it is to hear snippets that are chosen for us as an analist talks over... </div></div>Hey, who are you calling anal. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Just kidding. To be honest, I think you have to take whatever the candidate says with a grain of salt. Everyone knows that the candidates are only saying what they think the voters want to hear. All the candidates have an agenda and it is usually no where close to their stump speeches.

Wish I had more time to listen to their speeches, but I probably still would not be too interested in listening to the one-upmanship.

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-16-2008, 06:53 PM
Getting back to the original debate....Communism Vs Liberalism...all these "isms" can be explained using the two cows theory of economics....:

Gayle in MD
04-17-2008, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, I was being sarcastic, and you're trying to convince the wrong person about the evils of these programs. I have Medicare, and receive SS checks. National health care has it's problems, but many people can't afford health insurance. I'd be surprised if anyone believes these "socialist/communist" programs are free, or without problems, but I guess you believe folks on the Democratic side think that they are.
I wonder if you would also object to feeding the hundreds of thousands of elderly homeless that would line the streets if it were not for SS, and Medicare????
The UN, dealing with the Russians, and the Chinese, may also go against your creed, but at least we aren't at war with those countries. AND ain't the Chinese financing your President's war?
Sorry that some of your hard earned $$ is being used on these programs instead of going to big business,insiders, profiteers, etc....

Top
</div></div>


Tap Tap Tap!!!

Well done, my friend!

Love,
Gayle

Deeman3
04-17-2008, 07:26 AM
I'll still take the capitolist cow.

sack316
04-17-2008, 10:54 AM
Marxists! Sorry, just wanted to throw another term in here.

Sack