World hopes for a 'less arrogant America'

There are 20 comments on the Nov 4, 2008, Reading Eagle/Reading Times story titled World hopes for a 'less arrogant America'. In it, Reading Eagle/Reading Times reports that:

The world was riveted by the election drama unfolding Tuesday in the United States, inspired by Barack Obama or simply relieved that whoever wins the Bush administration was coming to an end.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reading Eagle/Reading Times.

“Cogito Ergo Sum”

Since: Feb 08

South of France

#2229 Nov 21, 2008
firmus wrote:
<quoted text>
bull....his data is crap. besides......what makes you think you need to come to his rescue? are you as much as a fool as he is? probably yes.
his take on "data" ......by the way....data is just that...data......it isn't information. apparently you have been taken in by his twist on the data...fine.....have it your way. besides.......i have very little time to formulate responses here........i don't have the luxury of sitting on the net all day studying biased sources to further my debate.
as far as sourced "data".....take a look at what he considers sources........all from biased moveon.org type sites.........mostly anti-american or with a decidedly liberal or foreign slant....
ok...you don't like bush....fine.......you aren't alone........you think bush is a criminal....good......do something about it.....with a democratic led congress.....we have yet to hear them bring forth any charges.........others think bush brought down the towers and conspired the whole 9/11 thing....great.......prove it.......as yet...after 8 years.......not one person has come out to say they were part of that conspiracy...and this from an administration that couldn't keep the fact that the president almost died choking on a pretzel watching a football game a secret.
a lot of you really need to get a life........in reality.
Bullshit, Firmus.
Like most of your posts, complete crap.
I post CIA, DoD and a wide variety of excellent, as unbiased and verified sources as I possibly can, none from the extremes, and all with corroborating sources and links.
Reality has no particular bias.

That you can't see the forest for the trees is disturbing, but then, you're probably one of those people who thought Saddam was in cahoots with al Patsi and that Saddam had WMD, and that Iran has new-klee-yar rockets and that they want to "Wipe Isreal of teh face of the urth."

You may be stupid, but possibly you're simply brainwashed, rinsed and hung out to dry.

I'm hoping it's the later, and that you may eventually be able to become a Human-being again, instead of a neocon drone stormtrooper, trotting like a clueless sheep behind your sinister masters as they stalk out in quest of "Global Dumbination".

As for "having time", you seem to have far more than I do, only you waste yours by posting effluent and unsupported reich-wing crap.
If you think you can debunk anything I've written, please feel free to try.
Only an idiot never changes his or her mind when new evidence and consistent factual and verifiable proof is brought forward.
So, bring it on.

That'll be worth waiting for..........LOL.
A Nnoyed

Yonkers, NY

#2230 Nov 21, 2008
Who cares if Saddam had WMDs? I don't.

He was a mass murderer of his own people and had his opposition raped tortured and buried in shallow graves.

Iraq needed liberating and that job was done.

Whining over details and technicalities is completely beside the point. It was a right and wrong issue and getting rid of Saddam was right.

duh.

“Cogito Ergo Sum”

Since: Feb 08

South of France

#2231 Nov 21, 2008
jon24 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just meant that those in Cuba are prisoners of war. Sorry to hurt your feelings, man someone needs a hug!
Jon, please make the effort to think.
Get informed, seriously, what will that cost you ?
Why do you resist becoming alert, inquisitive, informed and educated ?

If the men in Gitmo WERE POW's, there would be no problem, but they're NOT, hence such articulate and justifiably angry Americans like "It aint necessarily so" driving brisk roundhouses into the rotting and corrupt evil of the neoconned GOP administration as it blunders around defying the Rule of Law, International Criminal Justice and the Geneva Convention.

The Republiconneds raped the Constitution, because the PNAC in their arrogance and utter ignorance assumed the US citizens would be too fearorized by "evil tewwowists who hate your Fweedumb" to begin to think, and if you had immersed yourself into the Straussian mud and clinging goo of the PNAC doctrine, you'd know that by now the plan was to have a collosus straddling the Globe and a beatific American population rolling in the spoils of "Pax Americana" and forgetting all those thorny little details of the subversion of the American political machine by a sly elite with their beady little eyes fixed on full-spectrum dumbination.

I'm glib, perhaps, because it eases the pressure.
I hate fascism and totalitarianism, and that has been EXACTLY what you've been sinking blithely into over these last 8 fears of the neocon reign.
Seriously, make the effort to think.
Reason critically.
Understand.

Now that you'll maybe start thinking, what were you saying about those POW's in Cuba ?

“What Happened to Democracy?”

Since: May 08

Bronx

#2232 Nov 21, 2008
sean1030 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the 90's Bin Laden had not committed any crime. I guess out of 5 billion people on the planet, Clinton should have had ESP enough to know that Bin Laden was going to commit a crime. Bush the Drunk could have had him in 2001, but he conveniently let his entire family fly out of the US at a time when ALL flights were grounded.
Well, that may be true, but who funded, trained, and gave weapons to Bin Laden / if you said the Reagan administration, your 100% correct. We helped them to fight Russia during the end of the cold war. Bush Sr. was head of the CIA well before he became VP during the Reagan era. Should he have had the foresight to warn Reagan of the repercussions this may have?

It's not one individual party's fault for this. Blame can be spread equally around.
Lee

United States

#2233 Nov 21, 2008
mccain_fraud wrote:
I am sick to death of this "best country in the world" mentality. These "patriots" that love war think that way.
Real patriots are people who fight the system on behalf of the misfortunate. Our soldiers are cowards because they choose to serve corruption rather than help out the homeland.
You are the first person I ever heard who ever had the GUTS to say the truth about this. I don't support the troops. Every evil thing that the Bushes ordered, the troops carried out for them!!!

The reason the anti-war movement could not stop the SECOND attack on Iraq was because they insisted on everyone saying that they supported the troops!!

As long as you let them come back to glory, they will keep volunteering to kill!!!

Saying "I'm against George Bush but I support the troops" makes no sense! They DID his dirty work for him!! They were the ones who actually shot the guns and dropped the bombs!!!

It's like saying "I hate Hitler, but the Nazi soldiers were innocent!"

The guy who holds the gun and drops the bombs is the one at fault! Neither Hitler or the Bloodthirsty Bushes could have done their dirty work without the troops! They are the ones who gave Hitler and Bush their power!!!

All I can say is that I thank God that the Bloodthirsty Bushes are out of office now!! But we will suffer the consequences of their actions for decades if not longer.
jon24

Alexandria, VA

#2234 Nov 21, 2008
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be coy. Your argument has the effect of justifying Bush as you well know, just as his subsequent juxtaposition of 911 with Iraq had the same effect. He and many of you also now say that Bush never said blah blah. Bullshit to both of you.
Of course Iraq contained some trivial amounts of materials that could kill. So does my kitchen: ammonia and bleach. There is no reason to be insisting on such a trivial and obvious truth except to imply that such materials were to be used by Hussein against America or American allies.
It has already been explained to you by Pierre that Hussein was a dictator and had local enemies for which he surrounded himself with some weapons, as I'm sure you do yourself. But any reference to these things is automatically construed as justification of Bush and hs lying contention that they knew for a fact that there was a considerable arsenal of such weapons, and that they were intended for America and Americans. Condi and Powell threatened images of mushroom clouds and smoking guns. And yes,you are defending all of that while pretending not to be with comments like, "I never claimed that was justification of Iraq"
You people consider that not lying and not dishonest. It is both. More specifically, it is dissembling: Dissemble - verb (used without object): to conceal one's true motives, thoughts, etc., by some pretense.
What you are doing is either lying or being willfully stupid. Either way, you should concede that Bush deceived the American people when he insisted that he knew for a fact about Hussein's substantial WMD arsenal and stop pretending that you're not justifying Bush.
Sorry, I'm not trying to justify anything.
I've said numorous times one Sarin gas shell does not justify the war.
Yet when someone says that it could not have possably worked because it was so old? Like it's some justification for being there. What my complaint here is, we agree it's probably from back in the day. What is being implied and excused here is why it's still there. It's an oversight, oops. That's crap! How about admitting that?
What everybody is not understanding, is you don't just leave all your 155 shells together in a pile. Saddam had the forth largest army in the world be for the first gulf war. It takes logistics to run that.
It's not like they had the sniffles. They were treated for Sarin, so the thing seemed to worked. I don't need a chemistry lesson to tell me that.
As for Bush you have it both ways, He's Stupid and read the intel wrong."stupid neocons" HE fell for Saddams bluff of having them.
Then no, he lied and somehow manipulated the intel? Even with a Clinton appointed CIA chief.
The Senate and house had the same briefings W did and voted to authorize the war.
It aint necessarily so

Cape Girardeau, MO

#2235 Nov 21, 2008
A Nnoyed wrote:
Hey 'It aint necessarily so'
if you want yourself and others to prosper from your labor why don't you go out and start a business and give people an excellent salary, the best pensions, the best benefits and tons of vacation and paid maternity and paternity leave.
Best of luck selling t-shirts for $1,236.98 to pay for it all.
If America could keep the wealth it generates, and if it was more evenly distributed, we'd almost all be very, very comfortable. What prevents that, and allows there to be so many people struggling, is two things:[1] A huge portion of our wealth is diverted to useless expenditures that do nothing for you and me. and [2] the amount that remains for Americans to spend is being allowed (or forced) to collect into several extremely large piles and millions of tiny piles. It's that simple: correct those two and we're all on easy street. Good luck, because people smarter, more powerful and better heeled than us like it fine as it is. In fact, they have a full time crew that has no other purpose but to make it and keep it that way.

This crew is very effective. It's message sounds like its about you and for you, but it's not. It's for them. They tell you what you need to believe to support their agenda against your own interests and ship our dollars from us to them, and also to help them keep the money. This is accomplished by reducing taxes on the rich and reducing expenditures on the rest of us. Sound familiar?

Where is all the money going? A huge fraction of our wealth is paid out every year in interest on the national debt, which now stands at around ten trillion dollars. Four percent interest is 400 billion dollars to be paid out from the nations income next year to foreign bankers. http://www.federalbudget.com/ [Incidentally, Obama thinks he can get us all insured for $65-80 billion for contrast]. If we had our 400 billion, we could do great things with it. But we don't. Look at the link. It’s fascinating. Incidentally, about 90 million out of 300 million of us service that debt, almost $5000 each per year.

Another 120 billion will be going to Iraq, although that is not all. It is estimated that that war will cost us between 2000 and 3000 billion dollars altogether (2-3 trillion) when you add in the hidden costs like veterans health benefits for thousands of maimed and psycho-traumatized people. Afghanistan is costing about one third as much. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti... This link considers costs through the end of 2005 and is also fascinating.

Another huge wad goes to unnecessary weapons systems. This is harder to analyze. Opinions vary about what is unnecessary. Here’s one of many unnecessary projects, the F-22A Raptor: http://snipurl.com/681fj This paper http://snipurl.com/6816q from 2004 lists several potentially expendible weapons, and how and why conservatives fight to keep them alive.

The Dept of Defense budget for FY2009 is over $500 billion http://snipurl.com/67y0v It could be half that.

The crew discussed above is, of course, the Republican Party an its support team of media cheerleaders like Hannity, who have zero interest in us, just the hogs at the trough. This crew’s job is to promote this process in the media and the government: deficit spending, war, a huge military, and unnecessary weapons to divert our dollars to defense contractors like Halliburton. Debt allows interest to go to bankers. Bush couldn’t get us into war fast enough. He ran the debt up from 6 to 10 trillion. You’re expected to see all of this as essential, and most of you do. They’ve convinced you that money should not be spent on people (welfare queens, you know, and no universal health either) and that taxes should not be paid by the rich (four cuts for them in his first term).“Socialism” does the opposite. Horrors!

Isn’t it painfully obvious what Bush has been doing these last eight years? Exactly that.

“Cogito Ergo Sum”

Since: Feb 08

South of France

#2236 Nov 21, 2008
A Nnoyed wrote:
Who cares if Saddam had WMDs? I don't.
He was a mass murderer of his own people and had his opposition raped tortured and buried in shallow graves.
Iraq needed liberating and that job was done.
Whining over details and technicalities is completely beside the point. It was a right and wrong issue and getting rid of Saddam was right.
duh.
Just like Mossadegh. Just like Allende. Do you want the full list of people you've overthrown ?
Saddam was a bad bastard, of course. That's why he was the West's favorite.
We've propped up some vicious evil sons-a-beeches in our quest to ensure our little commercial existence keeps humming along smoothly, and a case in point is the Saudis, who make Saddam look like a prince of virtue.
Odd, I don't see you bitchin' and moanin' about them ?? Shirley shome mishtake ?

Could that be because you're a propaganda-fed sheep incapable of thinking for yourself ? I think we should be told.

Oh, and spare me the "But, but..you're Fwench..." Republiconned drool. Just answer the question.
Saudis, good or bad ?
jon24

Alexandria, VA

#2237 Nov 21, 2008
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If America could keep the wealth it generates, and if it was more evenly distributed, we'd almost all be very, very comfortable. What prevents that, and allows there to be so many people struggling, is two things:[1] A huge portion of our wealth is diverted to useless expenditures that do nothing for you and me. and [2] the amount that remains for Americans to spend is being allowed (or forced) to collect into several extremely large piles and millions of tiny piles. It's that simple: correct those two and we're all on easy street. Good luck, because people smarter, more powerful and better heeled than us like it fine as it is. In fact, they have a full time crew that has no other purpose but to make it and keep it http://www.federalbudget.com/ [Incidentally, Obama thinks he can get us all insured for $65-80 billion for contrast]. If we had our 400 billion, we could do great things with it. But we don't. Look at the link. It’s fascinating. Incidentally, about 90 million out of 300 million of us service that debt, almost $5000 each per year.
Another 120 billion will be going to Iraq, although that is not all. It is estimated that that war will cost us between 2000 and 3000 billion dollars altogether (2-3 trillion) when you add in the hidden costs like veterans health benefits for thousands of maimed and psycho-traumatized people. Afghanistan is costing about one third as much. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti... This link considers costs through the end of 2005 and is also fascinating.
Another huge wad goes to unnecessary weapons systems. This is harder to analyze. Opinions vary about what is unnecessary. Here’s one of many unnecessary projects, the F-22A Raptor: http://snipurl.com/681fj This paper http://snipurl.com/6816q from 2004 lists several potentially expendible weapons, and how and why conservatives fight to keep them alive.
The Dept of Defense budget for FY2009 is over $500 billion http://snipurl.com/67y0v It could be half that.
The crew discussed above is, of course, the Republican Party an its support team of media cheerleaders like Hannity, who have zero interest in us, just the hogs at the trough. This crew’s job is to promote this process in the media and the government: deficit spending, war, a huge military, and unnecessary weapons to divert our dollars to defense contractors like Halliburton. Debt allows interest to go to bankers. Bush couldn’t get us into war fast enough. He ran the debt up from 6 to 10 trillion. You’re expected to see all of this as essential, and most of you do. They’ve convinced you that money should not be spent on people (welfare queens, you know, and no universal health either) and that taxes should not be paid by the rich (four cuts for them in his first term).“Socialism” does the opposite. Horrors!
Isn’t it painfully obvious what Bush has been doing these last eight years? Exactly that.
I am asking a question here, please no name calling
you said
"If America could keep the wealth it generates, and if it was more evenly distributed"
That's a great statement. Tell me how Bill Gates should spread his billions?
The F22 gives us a generational advantage to anything else in the world. I don't want the military to have an even par with the rest. I want the advantage to be ours.
VoteNader org

Shirley, NY

#2238 Nov 21, 2008
Cornel West on the Election of Barack Obama:“I Hope He Is a Progressive Lincoln, I Aspire to Be the Frederick Douglass to Put Pressure on Him”
Princeton University professor of religion and African American studies, Cornel West, speaks about the election of Barack Obama, his selection of Eric Holder to be Attorney General, the possible selection of Lawrence Summers to be Treasury Secretary and the role of the progressive left to push Obama./ November 19, 2008
West is the author of the new book Hope on a Tightrope: Words and Wisdom.
http://play.rbn.com/...

==========

Ex-CIA Officials Tied to Rendition Program and Faulty Iraq Intel Tapped to Head Obama’s Intelligence Transition Team
November 17, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/65ykjo
John Brennan and Jami Miscik, both former intelligence officials under George Tenet, are leading Barack Obama’s review of intelligence agencies and helping make recommendations to the new administration. Brennan has supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition, and Miscik was involved with the politicized intelligence alleging weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war on Iraq. We speak with former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/obama_...
A Nnoyed

Yonkers, NY

#2239 Nov 21, 2008
I'm all for increasing taxes on those who make over 500k. We need cash and cutting taxes on them is a prime reason for the lack of necessary cash.

However, I'm not for increasing taxes on business. They create jobs. Tax the owners if they try to take money out instead of reinvesting.

There is nothing wrong with paying a fair share and republicans (not conservatives, there is a difference) lost the plot on this.

It's not just raising taxes, it's cutting spending as well. This is where the Liberal argument falls down for me. They want to spend, spend, spend on programs that have little if any chance of long term success. Their handout, not handup, programs create a permanent underclass dependent on the government. They breed laziness and are counter productive.

I'm not a republican and I voted against them. I think you confuse republicans with conservative capitalism. They are miles apart at the moment.

There is a compromise on regulation and growth. There is a compromise on helping the disadvantaged without creating a nanny state.

I don't buy into half the things said on Fox but I do watch it. It doesn't make me a neocon. No one else puts forward a balanced view (including Fox) so I need to watch more than one channel to see both sides of the coin.

We'll never agree but I think socialistic policies stink. They ignore the fact that humans are animals who are lazy and greedy by nature and that's why 'good' and 'nice' ideas ultimately fail. I'm not saying people are bad, but on a macro level our nature is our own worst enemy.

You need to work for it or you'll just take, take, take.

my 2 cents.
A Nnoyed

Yonkers, NY

#2240 Nov 21, 2008
Pierre France wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and spare me the "But, but..you're Fwench..." Republiconned drool. Just answer the question.
Saudis, good or bad ?
Not too good, not too bad.

You haven't got a decent argument.

And I'm not a republican.
Lily Pons

United States

#2241 Nov 21, 2008
A little sample to remind everyone of the man this nation and the entire world wont be missing.

Egotistical bush aka Caligula was quite famous for his photo ops and crocodile tears. Remember the photo op he gave at ground zero when he spoke through the megaphone? It was quite obvious that he never really gave a damn for those who perished on that fatal day since he was more concerned about the performance he was giving. You could even tell those crocodile tears of his was all for show and nothing more…I even recall some idiot comparing bush to Henry V when the coward gave his stupid and really bad performance at ground zero…. I was also totally convinced that bush was an apathetic and uncaring human being when he continued reading to the school children after he was told about the 9/11 attack. Well, generations from now (if we don’t destroy ourselves first) when people watch the movies An Inconvenient Truth with Al Gore, and Fahrenheit 9/11 with bush reading to the school children (he looked like he was doing poo poo and pissing in his pants from fear) while New York was being attacked, whom do you suppose people will be looking up to with respect? Certainly not bush. In fact, the people watching the film will probably be saying to themselves and each other.“How could they have voted for such a man?” Yep, 9/11 was indeed bush’s claim to fame. And I’m sure the 3000 innocent victims who left us on that fatal day are probably still saying; “Remember when we died and that lying egotistical hypocrite took advantage of our death by using our death as an excuse to start a war with Iraq even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack?”
Lily Pons

United States

#2242 Nov 21, 2008
Page 2

( ONE OF HIS MANY PHOTO OPS)
"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." ~ another grandiose lie from the apathetic, egotistical hypocrite and lying coward bush., MAY 1,.2003

"bush lands on the aircraft carrier strutting his stuff, and I have a hard time walking. How dare you! That's how I look at the president. How dare you! It amazes me how he does it with a smile too."
--Fields Black, 33, a Persian Gulf veteran breathing through
an oxygen tube because of his emphysema.

My husband John R. served his country well as a Marine Lieutenant on Iwo Jima, was wounded and received a Silver Star for his actions. Three of our sons volunteered to serve their country with pride and honor in Viet Nam. Whelan's were no "Chicken Hawks", as are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld ((WHO WAS IN THE SERVICE, BUT SAW NO COMBAT)). I cannot believe their boldness and audacity to want to send
our youth today where they were not willing to go yesterday.
--Helen Whelan, Wife and Mother of 3 veterans

"It is worse than in Saddam's time. I preferred life then. We had a normal life and we had security. My family have never been Saddam loyalists or supporters. When he was here we did not know we did not have freedom. This is what we were told by other countries. What we did know was we had safety and security. Now there are only dangers and uncertainty." -- Thuraya el-Kaissi, 17-year-old Iraqi girl

"When the Americans first came, Mohammad and my other children watched them with joy in our eyes. Now we hate them." -- An Iraqi mother whose 12 year-old boy was shot by US soldiers

I know they could care less but maybe some of the bush and mccain supporters should try to push themselves and visit a VA Hospital, I have, so they could actually see the carnage bush has caused merely to satisfy his Ego since it’s quite obvious he never really gave a damn for the Iraqi's and the Troops since DAY ONE.

"Sometimes you see amputees, with no arms, no legs, or none of either. When the bed sheet lies flat and then angles up at the waist, it’s a horrific thing."
Maj. Charlie Fenton, a chaplain

If you recall bush’s first inaugural was a dark, rainy, dismal, dreadful and depressing day. It felt as if a huge black cloud hovered over the entire nation as if a bad omen was about to transpire, and it did…

HAPPY THANKSGIVING AND MERRY CHRISTMAS. Although many families will be seeing empty seats at the dinner table this holiday season with only the memories of their loved ones to keep them company. Thanks to the apathetic arrogant, deceitful, vindictive, egotistical hypocrite and lying coward known as bush…
jon24

Alexandria, VA

#2243 Nov 21, 2008
A Nnoyed wrote:
I'm all for increasing taxes on those who make over 500k. We need cash and cutting taxes on them is a prime reason for the lack of necessary cash.
However, I'm not for increasing taxes on business. They create jobs. Tax the owners if they try to take money out instead of reinvesting.
There is nothing wrong with paying a fair share and republicans (not conservatives, there is a difference) lost the plot on this.
It's not just raising taxes, it's cutting spending as well. This is where the Liberal argument falls down for me. They want to spend, spend, spend on programs that have little if any chance of long term success. Their handout, not handup, programs create a permanent underclass dependent on the government. They breed laziness and are counter productive.
I'm not a republican and I voted against them. I think you confuse republicans with conservative capitalism. They are miles apart at the moment.
There is a compromise on regulation and growth. There is a compromise on helping the disadvantaged without creating a nanny state.
I don't buy into half the things said on Fox but I do watch it. It doesn't make me a neocon. No one else puts forward a balanced view (including Fox) so I need to watch more than one channel to see both sides of the coin.
We'll never agree but I think socialistic policies stink. They ignore the fact that humans are animals who are lazy and greedy by nature and that's why 'good' and 'nice' ideas ultimately fail. I'm not saying people are bad, but on a macro level our nature is our own worst enemy.
You need to work for it or you'll just take, take, take.
my 2 cents.
Don't be insulted but I agree with your post.
How about a flat tax for every one
firmus

Glen Burnie, MD

#2244 Nov 21, 2008
Pierre France wrote:
<quoted text>Bullshit, Firmus.
Like most of your posts, complete crap.
I post CIA, DoD and a wide variety of excellent, as unbiased and verified sources as I possibly can, none from the extremes, and all with corroborating sources and links.
Reality has no particular bias.
That you can't see the forest for the trees is disturbing, but then, you're probably one of those people who thought Saddam was in cahoots with al Patsi and that Saddam had WMD, and that Iran has new-klee-yar rockets and that they want to "Wipe Isreal of teh face of the urth."
You may be stupid, but possibly you're simply brainwashed, rinsed and hung out to dry.
I'm hoping it's the later, and that you may eventually be able to become a Human-being again, instead of a neocon drone stormtrooper, trotting like a clueless sheep behind your sinister masters as they stalk out in quest of "Global Dumbination".
As for "having time", you seem to have far more than I do, only you waste yours by posting effluent and unsupported reich-wing crap.
If you think you can debunk anything I've written, please feel free to try.
Only an idiot never changes his or her mind when new evidence and consistent factual and verifiable proof is brought forward.
So, bring it on.
That'll be worth waiting for..........LOL.
i see your lips moving but all i hear is blah-blah-blah.......there you are marching about goosestepping to the anti-america tune like a good little marionette......vomiting the typical mantras so tiring and unoriginal.
when france was a world power.....they never overthrew legitimate governments......right? and how france treats its african colonies, even now, is disgraceful. clean up your own house before demonizing mine.
as for your personal attacks......it really is juvenile.......but expected.
i have yet to find anything of value in your posts frenchie..........so what is it you want me to debate? that you are at the forefront of the anti-american rhetoric wagon? fine.........you are masterful at using all the latest quips and asinine remarks pertaining to republicans.....i guess if you want to be noted for something......that'll be it.......your rhetoric is top notch........of little substance....but amusing. now be a good little anti-american puppy and roll over for your masters.
A Nnoyed

Yonkers, NY

#2245 Nov 21, 2008
I liked the idea of a flax tax over a minimum.

Someone making 20 grand can't afford 2 grand for example. The big thing is you'd have to get rid of places to hide or avoid tax. If you go flat it's got to be flat.

Unfortunately things are so bad I don't think it's worth the risk at the moment. Same goes for raising taxes on business. And we're broke, some kind of compromise needs to be found to pay down mistakes and/or unfortunate events.

Once things settle and confidence gets up off the floor will be the time for a big rethink with the whole thing throroughly evalutated and discussed openly.

Rahm scared the pants off me when he said "never let a crisis go to waste, you can do big things". Forcing agendas independently of the best solutions in desperate times would make the dems worse than republicans in my opinion. And that is pretty bad considering the state of things.
jon24

Alexandria, VA

#2246 Nov 21, 2008
firmus wrote:
<quoted text>
i see your lips moving but all i hear is blah-blah-blah.......there you are marching about goosestepping to the anti-america tune like a good little marionette......vomiting the typical mantras so tiring and unoriginal.
when france was a world power.....they never overthrew legitimate governments......right? and how france treats its african colonies, even now, is disgraceful. clean up your own house before demonizing mine.
as for your personal attacks......it really is juvenile.......but expected.
i have yet to find anything of value in your posts frenchie..........so what is it you want me to debate? that you are at the forefront of the anti-american rhetoric wagon? fine.........you are masterful at using all the latest quips and asinine remarks pertaining to republicans.....i guess if you want to be noted for something......that'll be it.......your rhetoric is top notch........of little substance....but amusing. now be a good little anti-american puppy and roll over for your masters.
Viet Nam as well
It aint necessarily so

Cape Girardeau, MO

#2247 Nov 21, 2008
firmus wrote:
personally i see no difference in either party........unless you think tax and spend is so much more different than borrow and spend......in the long run......we are going to pay for it..
As I have indicated several times recently elsewhere, I am not a fan of the Democrats. Despite my significant concerns and disappointments with them for being neither liberal enough nor competent enough, still, there are significant and palpable differences between the two parties, although that gap had been narrowing as the Neocons began infiltrating the Democrats. The Republicans were infected with the Neocons first and most, but they were making inroads into the Democratic Party with representatives like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman in Congress and people like Dick Morris and George Stephanopoulos in the media.

You trivialize the difference between the two parties by describing them as "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend." The differences are considerable. This would be a very different country if Gore had not been swindled and had been allowed to take the job he was probably elected to.

Gore would NOT have flouted the Kyoto accords. He would not have insulted America’s allies and isolated the US. He would NOT have instituted a policy of torture for the military or set up gulags in Guantanamo. He would NOT have signed the Clean Air or Clear Skies acts. NOR would he have signed the USA PATRIOT Act. He would NOT have made Ashcraft or Gonzales US Attorneys General, he would not have nominated Priscilla Owens or William Pryor for lifetime seats on the US Courts of Appeals, and you would never have heard of the name of John Bolton.

Gore's administration would not have outed Valerie Plame, which endangered the lives of other operatives and compromised their ability to collect important intelligence. NOR would Gore have fabricated intelligence. He would not have been nearly as secretive with the people and the press, NOR made the government as opaque as it is now.

Gore would NOT have politicized gay civil union or stem cell research, nor would he have intervened with Terry Schiavo's right to die. He would NOT have quietly condoned Diebold's et al. paperless black ballot boxes or Florida's and Ohio's voter intimidation and disenfranchisement shenanigans.

And Gore would not have gutted FEMA and replaced its competent staff with incompetents and chimpanzees. And he would not have let the people of New Orleans languish for most of a week before taking action.

I don't feel that I am being told how I should react or what I should believe about a story. Often I can feel the author expressing an opinion or assuming a value that I don't share. But I don't feel that it is an effort to mold me.
It aint necessarily so

Cape Girardeau, MO

#2248 Nov 21, 2008
firmus wrote:
what makes you think i'm a republican? just because a person is a conservative doesn't make him a republican. as for comparing bush to hitler......that is way over the top.......at the very least disprespectful to us as a nation.....and historically.........trivializ ing the monster that hitler truly was.
Well, I've read several of your posts, and I can't recall any opinions or comments that gave me reason to believe that you had any significantly different ideas or positions than other people who do call themselves Republican. It is a very reasonable assumption even if it is incorrect. Why do you object to that description? What distinguishes you from the rest of the conservatives who voted for Bush and McCain?

Regardless, your characterization of MoveOn.org as biased was a typical response of those who drink from the Republican trough, so that’s where I got that from. I don't think that biased is the best word to describe an organization like MoveOn if the word is to mean something improper. They are liberal partisans. But their contempt for the administration is not because they are conservative partisans. It is because they are unethical, Machiavellian, have a stealth agenda and are un-American in their antidemocratic, class conscious and elitist leanings as well. Furthermore, they don’t represent America or its Constitution, just a small subset of Americans and its corporations.

There is a huge and significant difference about the way I disagree with Ron Paul, Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe or Colin Powell, conservatives who don’t ascribe to those vicious values and methods, and the way I disagree with the likes of Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, Santorum, Rove, and others. I would not call any of that first group biased, just partisan. But the second group is both partisan and biased in the worst sense

No matter how good any liberal is, this second group, the present conservative apparatus, and especially its media mouthpieces, will go to work to tear that liberal down without regard to truth or fairness of their claims, and will never find anything good or praiseworthy about him or her, just as they did Clinton, Gore, Kerry and now Obama. That is a quality of the Republicans that the liberals do not share. Al Franken’s criticism of Rush Limbaugh is completely different than Jerome Corsi’s criticism of Kerry or Obama, as different as fact and fiction.

MoveOn never engages in such malicious and destructive methods. So, when I saw the word bias in association with their name in your post, I recognized the malefic influence of the Republican media and echo chamber in your characterization of them.

Furthermore, I see it again with that Hitler thing, which is ridiculous. That is also compliments of the Republicans who you disavow. Firstly, it is not “way over the top” to compare the fascistic inclinations of the Neocons to any fascist including Hitler. That is a contrived indignation. It’s done all of the time, and worse. Max Cleland was shown with Osama bin Laden in Chambliss commercials. Obama is being equated with the antichrist. So what? Do you call those “disprespectful to us as a nation” or trivializing the monsters that bin Laden and the abntichrist are known or said to be. To me, these are all biases: calling MoveOn biased for being strongly disapproving of the Neocons and being offended by the Hitler thing but not similar offenses by the right.

The Republicans have been thoroughly disgraced and repudiated. Many people will be distancing themselves from that stinking mess now. Is that what you’ve done, or have you always disavowed them. And if so, if I may ask, since when an for what reason?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min mdbuilder 1,220,878
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Injudgement 179,439
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min Quirky 324,839
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? (Sep '14) 10 min WishYouWereHere 3,406
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min DanFromSmithville 161,096
News Biden: 'Guys a you have to step up' to fight vi... 14 min californio 117
News Russia providing arms to Ukrainian separatists:... 14 min tC Clm 1,123
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 2 hr xxxrayted 746
More from around the web