Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same As Bush: Lying Corporatist, Stealing Our Bill of Rights - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for comparing the man in Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber. You're also completely incorrect in comparing them. A suicide bombing is an extremely violent act. Standing in front of a tank with a briefcase is a singular act of nonviolence.

You seem to see alot of extra words there comparing things. I don't know what your monitor is presenting to you, but I made no such comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Cynthetiq, I'm disgusted that you'd reply to "Gandhi and Dr. King" with "suicide bomber". I'm looking to see if there's another word to describe my reaction, but there's really not: I'm disgusted.

Were you deliberately trying to be offensive? Are you so desperate to score points in this argument that you're going to lump the two paragons of NON-violence into the same group with suicide bombers? Really??

No not at all. I'm not comparing anything. Making note that while pacifists find martyrs acceptable, there are violent people that find martyrs acceptable as well. The ideology of martyr is a challenge since the ideology is not just dying for the cause of good, but dying for a cause. I see no GOOD in the definition listed below. I see "sake of principle" nothing about it being nonviolent or violent.

Quote:

Main Entry: 1mar·tyr
Pronunciation: \ˈmär-tər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek martyr-, martys witness
Date: before 12th century
1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
3: victim; especially : a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life — A. J. Cronin>

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 11:49 AM

In a discussion about nonviolence you tried to re-frame the discussion by switching to martyrdom and in that same post you compared the man in Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber.

Two very bright people came to the exact same conclusion about your comparison, Cynth. It may be time for self reflection.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Lech Welesa who led the peaceful Solidarity anti-government movement in Poland is alive.

Vaclev Hamel who led the peaceful "intellectuals" anti-government movement in the Czech Republic is alive.

Cory Aquino who led the peaceful yellow revolution in the Philippines is alive.

The leaders of the peaceful rose revolution in Georgia are alive.

Nelson Mandela is alive....happy 90th birthday!

/end threadjack

There are many peaeful protest... a whole rainbow of colors and ribbons, red, yellow, orange, blu, green.. I've never stated that they didn't exist. Over the course of history, they are a smaller percentage of victory without bloodshed. I've stated the guys with the guns decide to open fire, that's all that it takes to make that shift into violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

In a discussion about nonviolence you tried to re-frame the discussion by switching to martyrdom and in that same post you compared the man in Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber.

Two very bright people came to the exact same conclusion about your comparison, Cynth. It may be time for self reflection.

Again, please show me where there is a comparison. It is a STATEMENT. You stated people dying for causes, that's the definition of martyr. I'm stating that martyr can be ANY cause, good or bad from your point of view. Please read the defintion in any dictionary you have handy and please show me where it says, GOOD cause.

ratbastid · 06-25-2008, 12:01 PM

I understood what you said, Cynthetiq. Explaining it to me further hasn't handled my disgust.

Neither Gandhi nor King "voluntarily suffered death", by the way. They were both assassinated. Just so you've got your history straight. MASSIVE difference between killing for your values and being killed for them. I wouldn't call either of them martyrs, in the sense generally meant by the term.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Again, please show me where there is a comparison.

Fortunately, as this is a forum, we can scroll up and read. You very plainly responded to Ratbastid's post about the nonviolent protester in Tienanmen Square and Gandhi by claiming that they were martyrs like suicide bombers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You stated people dying for causes, that's the definition of martyr.

We were talking about nonviolence, and The_Jazz has a strong suspicion that the man in Tienanmen Square was tortured and killed. We don't even know if the man is dead or not, so calling him a martyr is incorrect. Rat was simply postulating that, if he did die, he did so as a nonviolent protester. You tried to reframe the conversation from nonviolence to martyrdom and you did so by comparing Gandhi and the man in Tienanmen Square to suicide bombers.

Also, what Rat said.

ratbastid · 06-25-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

/end threadjack

Wouldn't that be nice?

aceventura3 · 06-25-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

In a discussion about nonviolence you tried to re-frame the discussion by switching to martyrdom and in that same post you compared the man in Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber.

Two very bright people came to the exact same conclusion about your comparison, Cynth. It may be time for self reflection.

I understood the point Cynth made.

In my view a pacifist will enjoy the benefits from the past use of violence by others or the potential future use of violence by their neighbors/police/army/etc willing to defend life, liberty and property to fend off those who would otherwise commit violent acts to take those things, while a martyr is at least willing to make a sacrifice. It is easy to be a pacifist when nothing is at risk.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I understood what you said, Cynthetiq. Explaining it to me further hasn't handled my disgust.

Neither Gandhi nor King "voluntarily suffered death", by the way. They were both assassinated. Just so you've got your history straight. MASSIVE difference between killing for your values and being killed for them.

I don't disagree that there is a massive difference in the values.

Voluntarily suffered death... I guess you didn't continue with the rest of the definition which ends with the word "religion."

They were assasinated for their beliefs, I don't disput that, but "a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle" is befitting of their death. People have spoken that MLK was a martyr for the cause of civil rights. Ghandi, not that I've read. But if Tank Man was killed, he may very well be a martyr for the cause and freedoms of the Chinese people.

Benigno Aquino is considered a martyr to the Filipinos and probably the lynchpin to the downfall of the Marcos regime.

I'm not trying to make inflammatory comparisions here, I'm just stating like it or not the defintions as they are cut both ways, massive difference notwithstanding.

The_Jazz · 06-25-2008, 12:18 PM

Cyn, I for one see your point and sort of agree. Perhaps a better definition of a martyr would include that the observer agrees with the actor's decisions and politics. Which means that Joan of Arc isn't a martyr anymore.

aceventura3 · 06-25-2008, 12:22 PM

Also, keep in mind that Ghandi, King and other who had great accomplishments through the use of nonviolence, had leverage that gave them the power to make demands. In both cases they certainly had what was right on their side, but it was the possibility of great civil unrest and violence that added to their leverage. I would say they used a non-violent approach to accomplishing their goals, but in the end we don't know if they would have sanctioned violence. I know King had no objections to the national guard being used to protect children going to school, hence the threatened use of violence to protect life and liberty.

ratbastid · 06-25-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would say they used a non-violent approach to accomplishing their goals, but in the end we don't know if they would have sanctioned violence.

Well, let's ask them, shall we?

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-Gandhi

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."
-Gandhi

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
-Gandhi (a little martyrish there, eh Cynth?)

"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And one of my personal favorites:

"Let no man pull you low enough to hate him."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

By the way: easy to be a pacifist when there's nothing at risk? You're damn right, ace:

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Think he was talking about how big a gun you're standing with in times of challenge and controversy?

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Fortunately, as this is a forum, we can scroll up and read. You very plainly responded to Ratbastid's post about the nonviolent protester in Tienanmen Square and Gandhi by claiming that they were martyrs like suicide bombers.

We were talking about nonviolence, and The_Jazz has a strong suspicion that the man in Tienanmen Square was tortured and killed. We don't even know if the man is dead or not, so calling him a martyr is incorrect. Rat was simply postulating that, if he did die, he did so as a nonviolent protester. You tried to reframe the conversation from nonviolence to martyrdom and you did so by comparing Gandhi and the man in Tienanmen Square to suicide bombers.

Also, what Rat said.

Maybe you have difficulty with compare and contrast along with simile and metaphor. I still have made no comparison. I've only placed their actions and death within the scope and statement of the defintion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Well, let's ask them, shall we?

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-Gandhi

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."
-Gandhi

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
-Gandhi (a little martyrish there, eh Cynth?)

"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And one of my personal favorites:

"Let no man pull you low enough to hate him."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

By the way: easy to be a pacifist when there's nothing at risk? You're damn right, ace:

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Think he was talking about how big a gun you're standing with in times of challenge and controversy?

Those are some great quotes. There are many more from both of them that fall within my governing values. There are times where peaceful protest does get it's point across and leverage change. It has happened albeit minute quantity in comparision to the wars in the history of mankind.

I'm not sure how to route this back to the OP, but I will try again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynthetiq

No politicians aren't different. I'm not surprised that Obama waffles on an issue. He's a politician. It's part of the definition of the game of politics.

I really don't know why Americans are surprised and shocked that things happen with lying, graft, corruption, embezzlement, nepotism, and cronyism. It isn't much different than any other countries, the biggest difference is that we have due process to criminalize their actions and can remove them from office since they don't serve uncontestable life terms in office.

It seems to me that many think that politicians are above being human.

I don't think that even if Obama is a senator or president, that he won't be in some manner accussed or even commit any of the above.

ratbastid · 06-25-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Those are some great quotes. There are many more from both of them that fall within my governing values.

Cite me one.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Maybe you have difficulty with compare and contrast along with simile and metaphor. I still have made no comparison. I've only placed their actions and death within the scope and statement of the [definition].

You tried to change the framework from nonviolence to martyrdom, but the transition was too fast and too abrupt, leaving nonviolence as the topic. You compared Gandhi and the man at Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Cite me one.

here are two from Ghandi:
"Be the change you want to see in the world."

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

and two from Dr. King:
“Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'”

“Whatever your life's work is, do it well. A man should do his job so well that the living, the dead, and the unborn could do it no better.

will, okay, you win...

host · 06-25-2008, 11:25 PM

Ahem.... is there still room for an ON Topic post on this page?

If I've missed Obama's "finest moment", in his efforts TO PREVENT "the warrantless wiretapping", he vowed last november, to oppose, or in his new, watered down commitment to try to remove telecomm amnesty from the house passed, FISA "reform" bill, please point me to it !

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=2&vote=00158
The senate voted on wednesday to proceed to debate on the FISA bill. Those opposing this motion to move closer to a vote on the bill itself, garnered only 15 votes... Obama didn't vote. 80 senators voted to move the bill along, but some, including Reid and Spector, have stated they will not vote for the final version of the bill, if it still includes telecomm amnesty. Obama has said he will do the opposite:

Watch Obama explain, this week, how being against any bill that included telecomm amnesty in January, is consistent with saying now, that he will vote for a bill that includes telecomm amnesty if it comes up for a final vote for senate passage:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ostid-updateC6

Quote:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...m_immunity.php
Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security
By Greg Sargent - June 25, 2008, 6:13PM

At a presser today, Obama weighed in again on the FISA cave, and suffice it to say that what he said won't make opponents any less unhappy about Obama's position than they were already.

Asked specifically why he's supporting the current FISA bill when he'd promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that "national security" overrides the question of telecom immunity...

Watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPljokDWERg

It's true that Obama says mitigating things like we need to be "watching the watchers." But here's the key quote from him:

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Obama's line on national security here seems to be affirmation of something that many understood already: That he will support the bill even if telecom immunity isn't stripped from it, despite his promise to try to get immunity out of the legislation. If the issue of telecom immunity doesn't override national security, he'll of course vote for the bill with or without it.

Separately, the developing politics of this are interesting. Today Harry Reid announced that he will oppose the bill. Many Democrats are now asking, What will Hillary do?

Tea leaf readers note that Hillary's New York colleague, Chuck Schumer, also announced today that he's voting against it. Will Hillary follow suit? It seems like a huge opening for her to repair relations with progressives angry with her over her treatment of Obama during primary. On the other hand, some Dems note a complicating factor: If Hillary votes against the bill, it could cast a bit of a shadow over the planned "unity" Hillary-Obama event on Friday.

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...googlenews_wsj
Obama Tilts Toward Center, Irking Some Activists
Stances on Spy Bill
And Corporate Tax
Buck Liberal Base
By SUSAN DAVIS
June 24, 2008; Page A8

...On foreign policy, national security, tax issues and even local politics, Sen. Obama has made some decisions lately that belie his ranking by the nonpartisan National Journal as the U.S.'s "most liberal" senator.
[Barack Obama]

During the primaries, he ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Clinton, securing the nomination in part by shoring up a base that included self-identified liberals and Internet activists who helped fill his campaign war chest.

Some of those supporters are irked by Sen. Obama's latest moves, but the general-election season will put increased pressure on both candidates to attract moderate and independent voters.....

....To be sure, the predominant view among party leaders is that a turn toward the center is smart politics, and that Sen. Obama's willingness to buck the left wing on issues such as the spy bill signals he is maneuvering to fight Sen. McCain directly for voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

"I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable."

Sen. Obama's press office didn't respond to requests for comment....

Why is Obama lauded for "standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU", instead of the opposite....standing up to Cheney and Bush and their anti-constitutional "take our rights away from us via their maintaining a constant climate of fear" propaganda campaign?

Anybody willing to decipher what Obama's position is, compared to what it was back in January, and why it should not be a cause for concern, now?

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Ahem.... is there still room for an ON Topic post on this page?

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=2&vote=00158
The senate voted on wednesday to proceed to debate on the FISA bill. Those opposing this motion to move closer to a vote on the bill itself, garnered only 15 votes... Obama didn't vote. 80 senators voted to move the bill along, but some, including Reid and Spector, have stated they will not vote for the final version of the bill, if it still includes telecomm amnesty. Obama has said he will do the opposite:

Watch Obama explain, this week, how being against any bill that included telecomm amnesty in January, is consistent with saying now, that he will vote for a bill that includes telecomm amnesty if it comes up for a final vote for senate passage:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ostid-updateC6

Why is Obama lauded for "standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU", instead of the opposite....standing up to Cheney and Bush and their anti-constitutional "take our rights away from us via their maintaining a constant climate of fear" propaganda campaign?

Anybody willing to decipher what Obama's position is, compared to what it was back in January, and why it should not be a cause for concern, now?

I've stated it several times.

No politicians aren't different. I'm not surprised that Obama waffles on an issue. He's a politician. It's part of the definition of the game of politics.

I'll even add: flip flop, ride fence, talk both ways from his mouth...

host, if you've followed politics with the intelligence you've got, why are you surprised at this? or is this more because you believe that politicians must do as they say, promised, or what you believe should be right?

Do you believe that American politicians are above being human and suffering the same fates and foils of their counterparts around the world?

host · 06-26-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I've stated it several times.

No politicians aren't different. I'm not surprised that Obama waffles on an issue. He's a politician. It's part of the definition of the game of politics.

I'll even add: flip flop, ride fence, talk both ways from his mouth...

host, if you've followed politics with the intelligence you've got, why are you surprised at this? or is this more because you believe that politicians must do as they say, promised, or what you believe should be right?

Do you believe that American politicians are above being human and suffering the same fates and foils of their counterparts around the world?

Because.... I'm "on a mission", it sez so in post #7.

I am not the one who has posted in these threads that Obama is a different kind of leader...not your run of the mill politician. I have not urged anyone to "trust him". or to "take him at his word".

Conversely, I have not accused Obama of being "too liberal", or posted that he is "the most liberal member of the senate".

I recall that instead, I've posted that Obama is positioned "to the right of republican president Dwight Eisenhower".... that his call to increase US ground forces by 92,000 troops make him more a militarist, than a reformer.

I'll admit that I have probably been wrong about one thing, in posting my opinions that Obama faces a very difficult task; attracting enough votes to win in the general election in November. I did not expect that he would say or do anything that he and his handlers think will help him get elected. Since last thursday, I've been thinking that he will say whatever it takes....the constitution be damned....

I've posted that I do not see what others post that they see in Obama. Through it all, none of my specifics are answered with specifics. (Disclaimer: This is an example, not an attempt to single out this poster, who usually thoroughly backs up the points he makes in his posts...)

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=54

.....So, what about it....dc_dux, I'm asking you because you probably know how to quickly compare this outrageous revision to the language in the recently passed senate bill, the bill the house passed before this one, and to the bill last August that became law for a year and will soon sunset. Is this a new loophole, put in this bill, that works to make the government free from having to justify any elements of probable cause to conduct it's surveillance?

Obama, at least his spokesperson, today....and the house leadership, are not lowering my level of concern:....

I am used to that happening...especially in the TFP politics forum...

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Because.... I'm "on a mission", it sez so in post #7.

I am not the one who has posted in these threads that Obama is a different kind of leader...not your run of the mill politician. I have not urged anyone to "trust him". or to "take him at his word".

Conversely, I have not accused Obama of being "too liberal", or posted that he is "the most liberal member of the senate".

I recall that instead, I've posted that Obama is positioned "to the right of republican president Dwight Eisenhower".... that his call to increase US ground forces by 92,000 troops make him more a militarist, than a reformer.

I'll admit that I have probably been wrong about one thing, in posting my opinions that Obama faces a very difficult task; attracting enough votes to win in the general election in November. I did not expect that he would say or do anything that he and his handlers think will help him get elected. Since last thursday, I've been thinking that he will say whatever it takes....the constitution be damned....

I've posted that I do not see what others post that they see in Obama. Through it all, none of my specifics are answered with specifics.

I am used to that happening...especially in the TFP politics forum...

Thanks for the summarization.

roachboy · 06-26-2008, 04:11 AM

yeah--it's a little strange---if you have not particularly found the construction of obama as some left-type to be more than a conservative hallucination, there's not a whole lot to talk about in the fisa bill matter, simply because it follows--not from a facile cynicism regarding "politicians" in general, but from his own politics. my position is that obama appears to be part of a less self-enclosed, self-confirming ideological world than mccain, who is obviously in a position of trying to find some way to simultaneously distance himself from and maintain continuity with the delusional space of populist conservatism of the past 30 years. but i don't see obama as offering anything remotely like an alternate ideology to neoliberalism, anything like a viewpoint that i can say *will* result in coherence in the face of structural problems---but the fact that his is a more open position leads me to think he *might* be able to respond coherently, where mccain will not.

i also dont see obama as holding the bush people to account for much. my suspicion is that this would follow from the requirements of maintaining system legitimacy--there are limits to how far one could personalize the disaster that has been the past 8 years, associate it with the "bad apples" of the bush administration and thereby limit it to a question of individuals deviating from a trajectory otherwise rational, operating within a system that is otherwise legitimate.

but i didn't expect anything. i can't say as i'm disappointed.
what seems different with host is that there's a degree of disappointment i sense lurking about inside the anger.
but maybe i'm wrong.

host · 06-26-2008, 06:30 AM

rb, I don't think it's disappointment that I am feeling....I never had high expectations about Obama. I shared hope with some here that change had begun after election night' 2006. Now, I read what Obama said lasr week in reaction to the fealty for Bush policy from Hoyer and Pelosi, then the reactions posted to my posts on this thread.....and finally, I read this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../26/olbermann/ ...and I feel like my effing head is gonna explode. There are possibly four of us here who think US politics are dominated by two right wing parties....and the rest are politically, in denial...

roachboy · 06-26-2008, 06:51 AM

i don't know if you can say denial, really.
for example, i don't at all see dc as being "in denial" about much of anything--but his view tends to be shaped by a particular relation, a particular space of activity which i generally find to be interesting. at the same time, the question of how one positions stuff at a more general level continually crops up in my mind as i read his posts--but this seems an ongoing trade-off, not something wherein the position he writes from precludes a wider view. and there is something to be said for operating within the realm of what seems possible....its the old social democratic line, in the left tradition. and it can function to make peoples' lives materially better.

my basic position is that all such positions, in the micro-level and at the macro-level, would be helped alot with sustained, coherent pressure from positions to the left of what currently exists. in that respect, putting stuff up in a space like this is at best a type of practicing---what we really ought to be doing is figuring out how to get information out into the wider world.

but i keep wandering off into ontology and salt marshes lately.
i think there's a linkage (undermine the philosophical suppositions that enable what i take to be the dominant ideology/-ies)...but sometimes i think it'd be better to shift back into the trenches more.
but this artsy stuff is fun.
who can say what's the best way to do anything?

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 06:56 AM

I disagree in the denial as well.

I'm in full acceptance that politicians are going to waffle on issues, lie, cheat, steal, cronyism, nepotism, war and all that comes with it.

I think that we somehow were sold a bill of goods that the forefathers put forth a system that isn't corrupt or fallible. People are, and until there's a major change in the human condition, will continue to be so.

host are there any politicians that are acceptable to you? In my view for me, there are no politicians that are acceptable, most are just tolerable.

aceventura3 · 06-26-2008, 07:15 AM

Host,

I am not clear on some things about your point of view.

Did you or do you believe the rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders regarding their sentiments against the actions and decisions made by the Bush administration? How much of their rhetoric do you think was based on principles compared to politically grandstanding?

I always found it interesting how you would call Bush a lier, when anyone paying attention knew what Bush wanted, what he was going to do and when he was going to do it, but up until now you have given Democrats a pass for saying things like: we did not know that authorizing the use of military force would lead to war, that continually funding an occupation of Iraq would mean troops would continue to be in Iraq, that approving the appointment of a General who supported a surge would lead to a surge, etc, etc, etc. Why all of a sudden are you surprised. Democrats have had a pattern over the pass 8 years of saying one thing and doing another. I am surprised people have not been outraged by that.

host · 06-26-2008, 07:19 AM

"acceptable, Cynthetiq?" Yes....some politicians are even praiseworthy, IMO. There is a subcommittee hearing taking place this AM as I'm posting this... some of the named congressional reps at that hearing, are to be lauded:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...-yoo/#comments I still am an admirer of Sen. Russ Feingold. I lost some regard for him....I posted about it two months ago....when he went off in a taped Q&A on one of his constituents who asked him if his strong support for Israel was really in the best interests of the US....

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 07:28 AM

Frank and Conyers?

host · 06-26-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host,

I am not clear on some things about your point of view.

Did you or do you believe the rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders regarding their sentiments against the actions and decisions made by the Bush administration? How much of their rhetoric do you think was based on principles compared to politically grandstanding?

I always found it interesting how you would call Bush a lier, when anyone paying attention knew what Bush wanted, what he was going to do and when he was going to do it, but up until now you have given Democrats a pass for saying things like: we did not know that authorizing the use of military force would lead to war, that continually funding an occupation of Iraq would mean troops would continue to be in Iraq, that approving the appointment of a General who supported a surge would lead to a surge, etc, etc, etc. Why all of a sudden are you surprised. Democrats have had a pattern over the pass 8 years of saying one thing and doing another. I am surprised people have not been outraged by that.

ace....plenty of examples of president's lies about the gravest issues....his justifications for war with Iraq and for abridging our fourth amendment protections:
Did They Hand this MF Decider the Wrong Script, or Is this "Ground Hog Day"?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ip#post2461896

Quote:

The President:...The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....

You answered your own question, here....IMO, ace:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2461594

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I did not include the entire article, I did include the link, but there is a paragraph were the author qualifies his data. I focused on the broader point of the article. Here is the full article.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. I agree with that. Bush Stated that.

Congress did not have all of the intel the WH had. I agree with that. The Intel over Clinton's and Bush's administrations pointed to Saddam having WMD and a desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Intel from England further supported this. Saddam lead his own military that they had WMD.

Members of the Bush administration had a desire to remove Saddam from power prior to 9/11.

Iraq became a key military front in the war against terror. We don't know the full extent of Zarqawi's travels. We don't know the full extent of who he talked to or who gave him aid and assistance. All we can rely on is intel, the same kind of Intel that proved wrong regarding WMD in Iraq. You can not prove any points regarding Zarqawi, all we can do is speculate based on published Intel that may be right or wrong.

It seems you want me to say that Bush lied. I can not do it, nothing you have posted shows that he lied.

Why not show me how I am wrong. Isn't that the point of an exchange like this? I hope I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time listening to Obama speeches, I did watch the debates, and he clearly said he would withdraw the troops unconditionally.

What about the issue of a premature withdrawal and the ramifications, wasn't that the main point of my post? Do we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them re-build their nation? What is your view on that question? Isn't that an important question worthy of political discussion? The "apt analogy" - shouldn't we in fact leave once the Iraqi people can stand on their own and defend their country from threats internal and at least to some degree external. Isn't "running it course" a good thing for Iraq?

...and I think the following, knocks the shit out of your statement that,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...The Intel over Clinton's and Bush's administrations pointed to Saddam having WMD and a desire to obtain nuclear weapons.....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2352737

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

.....huh? That is what you got out of Colbert's "performance"?

If your "take" is closer to what Colbert was saying to his audience of DC working press, then Colbert uncharacteristically abandoned his "in character" persona.... that of a conservative TV commentator.

<h3>Do you really believe that Colbert was not telling the press that they are co-operative "stenos"</h3> who agree to be "kept in line", in exchange for "access" to "unidentified high ranking administration officials"?

If what you say is correct, Colbert does not embrace his own "message", and he admitted that at last year's annual white house correspondent's dinner...

...and, didn't the white house press corp, in the months preceding the march, 2003 invasion of Iraq, fail to question the turnabout from administration officials....Powell, Rice, and Tenet had all said, between Feb., 2001, and the end of July, that Saddam was no threat to his neighbors", and the press corp certainly never brought up those pre-9/11 quotes to challenge the administration's post 9/11, totally opposite accusations against Iraq:

Quote:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001

Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ

Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.

High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.

There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

Shouldn't there have been more "journalism" like these very rare instances, (below) especially between Oct., 2002, and March, 2003, if your "take" on Colbert's meaning of "stenographer" is accurate.... I find almost none, especially disturbing in view of the 2001 opinions of Powell, Tenet, and Rice:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week..............

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

stop challenging me to defend democrats, ace....on a day when I don't seem to have much use for a lot of them. Lets look at the last 7-1/2 years....
First few months...2001" Republicans control house, senate, presidency
next 18 months...democrats control senate to a slight degree.... 50 dems, 49 repubs, 1 independent, Cheney serves as senate VP and tie breaking vote.

next 4 years, Republicans control house, senate, presidency

last 17 months, dems have control of house, slight control of senate....51st dem senator incapacitated by TBI, early in term, cannot vote....Cheney is still tie breaking vote....Bush, a president who set a record by not vetoing a single bill in first six years....vetoes and/or attaches signing statements to nearly every bill passed and sent up to him. Republicans in senate rename their filibustering tactics, but set a record for filibuster type blocking of senate attempts to engage in the legislative process....yeah, ace, those lying democrats have really screwed up the government these last 7-1/2 years....

Visit the linked page in my last post....actual hearings that resemble attempts to make executive branch officials are taking place, ace....after six years of the congress abandoning the practice......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Frank and Conyers?

Near the top of the page that I linked to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptywheel

......Note this hearing is a Subcommittee Hearing--so it's Jerrold Nadler's baby, not Conyers'. That means a subset of HJC's better questioners will appear today: Nadler, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison, Conyers, Scott, Watt, and Cohen, with Franks, Pence, Issa, King, and Jordan for the bad guys......

....and the negative reference was towards republican rep, "Trent" Franks:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...22&btnG=Search

What is your objection to Conyers....vs. the "stuff" he's been doing, like this:

Most of these asshats are flawed in the ethics dept.... Conyers certainly is....but he is one of the few bright lights, when it comes to any challenge to the operational, official misconduct...who to invade, who to torture, who to "out" for purposes of political payback....

Quote:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congr...80623_6146.php

....GOVERNMENT OPS

The House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees are set to keep pressing the White House on its role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, as both press the Justice Department for records of FBI interviews of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

At a hearing Friday at which former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testified, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers said his panel "may have to resort to compulsory process" if DOJ refuses to turn over transcripts of interviews of Bush and Cheney conducted during Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak probe.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for those and related documents last week.

Conyers and Waxman have said McClellan's new book and other disclosures suggest Cheney and other White House officials might have told subordinates to mislead the public about the leak....

Quote:

http://www.reflector.com/local/conte.../rollcall.html

....John Conyers, D-Mich., said: "This war must end. The American people and the Iraqi people have endured enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against funding this war another day. Tomorrow, we will have been at war for 1,866 days. It will be 1,866 days too many."....

Quote:

YouTube - John Conyers Arguing Against Changes to FISA
Jun 20, 2008 ... John Conyers on the House floor arguing against the changes to FISA.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=szgu3rMj0Q4

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 08:25 AM

I don't object to Conyers very much, again, I see it as tolerable. I didn't see the longer list of contributors, I just saw the transcript names.

dc_dux · 06-26-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

There are possibly four of us here who think US politics are dominated by two right wing parties....and the rest are politically, in denial...

host..I assume that puts me in the denial crowd since I am more open to compromise and not as accepting of the ACLU/Greenwald rhetoric that IMO exaggerates the impact of the FISA Amendments.

rb....thanks for understanding, even if you dont agree.

So, for the record:

My Personal Resolution of Deniability
Whereas the accomplishments of the Democratic majority to expose and correct many of the abuses of the Bush Administration are numerous and comprehensive (see accomplishments), and

Whereas Uber Conservatives will deny such accomplishments and proclaim all Democratic actions to be political motivated by persons who don’t get it or are dishonest, and

Whereas Uber Liberals may declare such accomplishments insufficient and ideologically impure for not going far enough , and

Whereas, by most measures, a majority of American reject an extremist agenda, either uber conservative or uber liberal, and support or lean towards supporting a left-center domestic agenda and more mainstream center foreign policy/national security agenda , and

Whereas the Democratic party has expanded its tent and grown in the last six years to be more diverse and represent a broader spectrum of such policy positions, and

Whereas the leadership of the Democratic party recognizes that building a lasting and effective Democratic majority requires compromise, consensus building and a pragmatic and flexible approach to governing rather than a rigid ideological response.

Be It Resolved that many in the Democratic party in Congress and in Internet Political Forums will continue to pursue a pragmatic progressive agenda that has the support of a majority of Americans in order to achieve the goal of a more transparent and open government and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Be It Furthered Resolved and speaking solely for myself, I have chosen such a practical and solutions oriented approach of my own free will and that I am in full possession of my faculties and not in denial.

DC_DUX

More for the record:
host....I couldnt do what I do w/o those of you further to the left of me doing what you do....all in support of preventing the aceBush uberConservatives from continuing to do what they would do.

host · 06-26-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

host..I assume that puts me in the denial crowd since I am more open to compromise and not as accepting of the ACLU/Greenwald rhetoric that IMO exaggerates the impact of the FISA Amendments.

rb....thanks for understanding, even if you dont agree.

So, for the record:

My Personal Resolution of Deniability
Whereas the accomplishments of the Democratic majority to expose and correct many of the abuses of the Bush Administration are numerous and comprehensive (see accomplishments), and

Whereas Uber Conservatives will deny such accomplishments and proclaim all Democratic actions to be political motivated by persons who don’t get it or are dishonest, and

Whereas Uber Liberals may declare such accomplishments insufficient and ideologically impure for not going far enough , and

Whereas, by most measures, a majority of American reject an extremist agenda, either uber conservative or uber liberal, and support or lean towards supporting a left-center domestic agenda and more mainstream center foreign policy/national security agenda , and

Whereas the Democratic party has expanded its tent and grown in the last six years to be more diverse and represent a broader spectrum of such policy positions, and

Whereas the leadership of the Democratic party recognizes that building a lasting and effective Democratic majority requires compromise, consensus building and a pragmatic and flexible approach to governing rather than a rigid ideological response.

Be It Resolved that many in the Democratic party in Congress and in Internet Political Forums will continue to pursue a pragmatic progressive agenda that has the support of a majority of Americans in order to achieve the goal of a more transparent and open government and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Be It Furthered Resolved and speaking solely for myself, I have chosen such a practical and solutions oriented approach of my own free will and that I am in full possession of my faculties and not in denial.

DC_DUX

More for the record:
host....I couldnt do what I do w/o those of you further to the left of me doing what you do....all in support of preventing the aceBush uberConservatives from continuing to do what they would do.

_dux, I am surprised that I agree with you as often as I do, because I reject most of what you are saying, mostly because I don't see the "moderation" in the politics and core beliefs of the majority that you believe that they hold and exhibit, and, probably more so, because, even if your are correct about the broadbased American consensus, if "Middletown" is a "canary in the coal mine", there isn't time for your process of political progress, to get us where I think that we need to be.

There isn't time for the economy, for the supply of affordable oil, for the "war on terror", for the problem and effects of inequitable power and wealth distribution trends to "fix themselves".

This tells me:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200944_pf.html
Questions for Tony Snow

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, May 12, 2006; 3:39 PM

....Poll Watch

Richard Morin writes for washingtonpost.com this morning on an poll conducted yesterday -- just as this new story was just starting to spread. It finds "that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it."

But take poll results about this complicated, unfolding story with a huge grain of salt.

As Carl Bialik wrote for the Wall Street Journal in February: "What does the public think about the Bush administration's wiretapping program?

"It depends on how you ask the question. . . .

"Such polls ask people for 'an opinion on an issue they're confronting and evaluating on the phone,' Mark Blumenthal, a Democratic pollster in Washington, D.C., and author of the Mystery Pollster blog, told me. 'They will pick up cues about language of the question.' "....

...and so does this excerpt, that...."the people" need to be led, and Obama is following, not leading, and in his winning the approval of the "power elite", insuring that nothing of any substance, will change. I've highlighted in yellow, what I think is a condensation of what you say you stand for, and what the results of your principles/pragmatism, are....below that, are a near realtime description of the results:

Quote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SVK...um=1&ct=result

....There had been a moment in the history of Middletown when it's symbols and beliefs ran parallel with it's dreams and the realities of everyday life. In the years of the economic boom, progress was apparent and touched everyone, though of course some profited from it more than others. With the Depression, on the other hand,

the distance between the symbolic universe of belief and the pragmatic universe of everday action has widened. They have again floated abruptly apart, and so far apart as to demand of Middletown either that it apply it's customary formula and blinldy deny that the gap has actually widened, or at least regard it as merely a temporary interrruption; or that it revise this high-floating world of symbols, restating it in humbler and less hopeful terms so as to re-locate it closer to everyday reality; or that it accept as normal the fact of living in an enhanced state of tension because of the unwonted permanent remoteness of the two planes. 32

The symbolic ceiling above Middletown has collapsed: there was no longer hope for everyone, but only a reality shaped by the will and actions of the power elite. Dreams themselves were reduced to contingencies and wonder had been exchanged for consumer object; or their range was restricted to the parameters of the possible, limited to the triviality of the objects within reach: in short, betrayed by themselves (Caillois 1990).

...and "Middletown", in 2008...I found the comments, linked at the bottom, to be especially telling about where we are, and where we're likely to be going....this America in 2008:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050502738.html
Middletown, Teetering On the Divide
An Indiana City With an Average Past Anxiously Faces an Uncertain Future

By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; C01

MUNCIE, Ind.

In the 1920s, two amateur sociologists went searching for a city that was singularly unexceptional. They wound up here.

They made a study of Muncie, asking its children how often they read, and its women how often they ironed. Then more sociologists came, and market researchers and documentarians and journalists, poking and prodding over the decades, measuring Muncie with the calipers of their trades.

And the people here took it with characteristic good humor, except for the rare occasions when they wanted to run some pointy-headed jerk out of town. They understood why people came. America was nostalgic for a city like this, for a solid Midwestern community that called itself "America's Home Town."

Only now, Muncie is nostalgic for itself.

* * *

On the eve of the Indiana primary, does Muncie have anything to tell America? (And is it sick of being asked?)

"I don't know what to tell you about Muncie, but it's a dying town," says Ron Cantrell, working the cash register of a dusty liquor store on the south side of town, where things are bleakest. "It's almost dead. It's like a cockroach lying there with its legs in the air."

Muncie looks okay from certain angles, kind of like America. North of the White River, which bisects Muncie, things are pretty good. There's Ball State University and Ball Memorial Hospital, both large employers. There's Muncie Mall and the big-box stores, and -- why would anyone shop in Muncie's historic downtown anymore? How could those little shops possibly compare with Wal-Mart?

South of the river is the industrial part of town, and this is where you see the frayed seams of the Rust Belt. Here are the slumped houses, the abandoned fast-food joint, the wreckage of a leveled auto parts plant. Manufacturing jobs, long the backbone of the city's economy, have been leaving. Muncie has lost more than 10,000 people since 1980, and the population is now 66,000.

There are establishments on the south side that are little more than squat boxes with barred windows, built entirely for function and not a bit for beauty. One of these is the store where Cantrell works, which used to have two cash registers and now has one because there isn't that much business anymore. He sells cheap vodka and Natural Ice beer to people who walk and sway and shuffle in.

Cantrell, 51, says he'll be voting Democratic this election. He's not sure for whom yet, but Democratic for sure. Hillary or that guy, whatever his name is.

"As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans have turned things to [expletive]," he says. "I'm working two jobs now just so I can put gas in my van."

Cantrell talks about what it was like when his dad came up from the South, like so many others, to work in the parts plants in Muncie. How the city was thriving then. If people think this is Middle America, he says, they're wrong. Muncie doesn't represent Middle America anymore.

Probably.

"Well, I hope Middle America is a little better than what's around here," he says. "Otherwise, that's depressing."

* * *

What a burden, being average.

When Robert and Helen Lynd happened upon Muncie in 1924, looking for a place to study the effects of industrialization, they liked the city because it was "middle-of-the-road," they wrote, without "outstanding peculiarities or acute local problems." Not too big, not too small; not too hot or too cold. Not on either coast, but smack in the Midwest, which seemed more quintessentially American to the Lynds, somehow. For the purposes of their study, they named it Middletown.

Muncie was not truly average or typical in the literal sense. It had fewer immigrants than most Midwestern cities of its size, and what black population there was, the Lynds utterly ignored in their surveys.

But when the book "Middletown" came out in 1929, it became a national bestseller, and many Americans came to feel that Muncie was Anytown, U.S.A. Muncie became another Peoria for market researchers and trade journals, who figured that if, say, newfangled school supplies sold here, they would sell . . . everywhere!

"The only two books that are absolutely necessary for an advertising man are the Bible and MIDDLETOWN!" one sales journal declared, according to Sarah E. Igo's book "The Averaged American."

There have been many more sociological studies and books about Muncie over the decades -- so many that Ball State formed the Center for Middletown Studies. A filmmaker came in and made a documentary series that aired on PBS in the late '70s and early '80s.

The good people of Muncie could be forgiven if they have felt at times like lab rats.

"It was terrible -- it made us look like a bunch of dumb oafs," says Phil Ball, eating breakfast at an IHOP and remembering the documentaries.

Ball, 89, is a retired doctor and amateur town historian whose family came to this area in the early 1800s. (They were the "original" Balls, he points out, not related to the wealthy Ball family that made its money in glass manufacturing here, and after whom the university was named. "Fruit jar Balls," he says with mock derision.)

Ball has written a book called "Dr. Coldwater's Hilarious History of Muncie" and he pens occasional columns for the local paper with headlines like "What's the Latest News From Muncie? Nothing!" He likes it here, he says, because there's just enough to do and because he can get anywhere in 10 minutes and most of all, because he knows it.

"It's a comfortable town," he says.

Not a lot happens here, which was always part of the beauty of Muncie. We talk of "heartland values" and "Main Street" and "Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public." Muncie was all of that. Muncie didn't change. And now?

Muncie is still average, in a sense. If you consider uncertainty to be America's new norm.

* * *

The people of Muncie are not cynical when it comes to politicians, not exactly. But they are savvy.

They say we're not in a recession, says a retired press operator. You try telling the young people that.

They throw back shots and pretend to be like us, says a nursing instructor. I don't want a regular person in the White House. I want someone smarter than me.

They say, Jobs, jobs, jobs.

"I think it's a hollow slogan," says Jeff Lewis, who conducts political polls in Indiana, and who's sitting one evening at a retro-hip pub called Morton's, one of a few places that are trying to breathe life back into the old downtown.

"The glory days are gone," says his friend Joe Castelo, the former mayor of nearby Hartford City.

"Our students at Ball State . . . they don't stay around here," says Ray Scheele, a political science professor.

Once upon a time, "a guy who worked in the automotive industry here could have a boat, two cars, and his wife didn't work," Castelo says. "You were looked at like an idiot for going to college."

It will never be back the way it was, they all say. New jobs may come to Muncie, but it will never again be so easy to make a good living without a college diploma. And that's just the way it is. So when a candidate promises jobs, what sorts of jobs? And does the audience hear what it wants to hear because it wants things back the way they were?

The pollster, the politician and the professor are all Obama supporters. They think the Democratic vote will be close in Muncie, as it is across the nation, with the college students and the academics and the black community voting for Obama, and the white working class going for Clinton.

Speaking of Clinton.

"She opened up last week with, 'The issue in Indiana is jobs, jobs, jobs,' " Scheele says dryly. "And it played real well on the news."

* * *

When the Lynds landed in Muncie, they were nostalgic for what Muncie had been before industrialization. Now, industry is leaving Muncie and nostalgia has taken hold again.

Not among the young people, though. The young people are outta here. Everyone you talk to, their kids have left town for Indianapolis, New York, Washington.

"I would never stay here, ever, ever," says Destiny Wilcox, 23, of Evansville. It's Saturday and she's in her cap and gown, having just graduated with a degree in advertising from Ball State. Why would she stay in Muncie? she says. What would she do? Retail? Food service? Work at the university? "There are no jobs here."

At Clinton headquarters, DiAnne Hannah, 63, says she's voting for Clinton because Clinton "knows what reality really is," is steeped in the issues and can fix the problems with jobs and health care. Hannah says she left her job as a financial aid adviser at the university last year because she'd reached retirement age and she felt like if she stayed, she'd be taking the job away from someone younger, someone who really needed it.

"What chance do our young people have to stay here?" she says.

"What about someone like me?" says the woman across from her, Marti McKeighen, who's been making get-out-the-vote calls. Twenty-four years making auto parts on an assembly line at BorgWarner and now BorgWarner is leaving town. "I can't get my retirement and I'm 55 years old -- what's going to happen to me?"

Hannah and McKeighen start to reminisce about downtown Muncie and the way it was, back before the big-box stores and the strip malls. Grant's, JCPenney, the dime store, the soda fountain.

"This is old Muncie talking here," Hannah says.

"I remember when they had the Cinderella shop downtown," McKeighen says.

"Oh, yes," Hannah says.

View Comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._Comments.html

Willravel · 06-26-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My Personal Resolution of Deniability
Whereas the accomplishments of the Democratic majority to expose and correct many of the abuses of the Bush Administration are numerous and comprehensive (see accomplishments), and

Whereas Uber Conservatives will deny such accomplishments and proclaim all Democratic actions to be political motivated by persons who don’t get it or are dishonest, and

Whereas Uber Liberals may declare such accomplishments insufficient and ideologically impure for not going far enough , and

Whereas, by most measures, a majority of American reject an extremist agenda, either uber conservative or uber liberal, and support or lean towards supporting a left-center domestic agenda and more mainstream center foreign policy/national security agenda , and

Whereas the Democratic party has expanded its tent and grown in the last six years to be more diverse and represent a broader spectrum of such policy positions, and

Whereas the leadership of the Democratic party recognizes that building a lasting and effective Democratic majority requires compromise, consensus building and a pragmatic and flexible approach to governing rather than a rigid ideological response.

Be It Resolved that many in the Democratic party in Congress and in Internet Political Forums will continue to pursue a pragmatic progressive agenda that has the support of a majority of Americans in order to achieve the goal of a more transparent and open government and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Be It Furthered Resolved and speaking solely for myself, I have chosen such a practical and solutions oriented approach of my own free will and that I am in full possession of my faculties and not in denial.

DC_DUX

I can appreciate all of this. I do have a sneaking suspicion that you're just as left as host and I on most things, but I think your pragmatic approach is different than ours. Your pragmatic approach includes a taste of centrism. Ours not so much. For me, pragmatism in politics is absolute honesty as I see the biggest problem with politics as being politics itself. Not only that, but I think that you may see compromise in a better light than host and I. To me (and probably host) compromise in the House and Senate right now is a really, really bad thing. It's yet another way in which we're let down by those we hope to step up and be heroes. This is made clear in my appreciation for politicians like Kucinich who are unwilling to compromise even when it means fighting an impossible battle. I believe that, for you, compromise is about living to fight another day.

BTW, a post like yours would make for a really interesting way to introduce one's self on a political forum.

aceventura3 · 06-26-2008, 11:36 AM

Host,

Your response to my question suggests that you insist that Democratic party leaders and others who were paying attention had no awareness of Bush's agenda to invade Iraq prior to the invasion.

That the Democratic party leaders and others paying attention had no awareness of Bush's intent to occupy and to spread democracy in Iraq after the initial invasion, as they continually funded the occupation and provided funds for the spreading of democracy in Iraq.

That that key Democratic party leaders in particular had no awareness of Bush's aggressive interpretation of his war powers that he used to justify what many call violations of the FISA legislation.

That key Democratic party leaders and anyone paying attention had no awareness until the recent Supreme Court ruling that enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay were being held without the writ of habeas corpus as afforded to US citizens under the US Constitution.

Given the above and some other items, you actually want me to believe that by simply saying Bush lied absolves Democratic party leaders and anyone paying attention of any responsibility - making them victims and that it allows them to say one thing and do another or do nothing?

I got it. And, I am not the one in denial.

Willravel · 06-26-2008, 12:01 PM

They're not absolved, but they don't share in the same responsibility.

aceventura3 · 06-26-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Whereas Uber Conservatives will deny such accomplishments and proclaim all Democratic actions to be political motivated by persons who don’t get it or are dishonest, and

For the sake of clarity and for the record, this "Uber Conservative" has not denied accomplishments by members of the Democratic Party. For example, they accomplished passing the Farm Bill. It is just that the Farm Bill is not really a "farm" bill, it is a welfare bill. It supports poor people needing food assistance and wealthy farmers. The bill has unintended consequences including driving up food costs and is inconsistent with the stated goals of Party leaders. This "Uber Conservative" was critical of Bush's and Republican support of the previous bill and will be if Bush signs the current bill. Many of the "accomplishments" you often point to have real and legitimate objections. Heaven forbid, anyone challenge something supported by Democrats, question their motives, our ask them to reconcile their rhetoric with their actions. Those questions are considered offensive and go unanswered.

I have been consistently pointing to rhetoric that can not be reconciled with actions from Democrats. Seems the knee jerk response is - well we had to do it, or, we were forced to to do it, or, those mean old Republicans made us do it. And let's not forget, the "Uber Liberal" response - Bush lied, therefore...

Again, I get it. I think I will post something else showing how Democrats say one thing and do another - see the Countrywide thread if interested.

"...endeavor to preserver." - Lone Waite, Outlaw Josey Wales

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

They're not absolved, but they don't share in the same responsibility.

Care to elaborate? Host's position is clear, Bush lied, therefore...what? If I believe a person is a lier, I don't believe them...ever. I never act on what they say...ever. I always do my own homework. Saying Bush lied over and over is B.S. Perhaps you can say it once.

Then we have DC, well we did not do A, B, and C but we did E, F and G. Oh, the A, B, and C things are the most important issues of the day. But we will just complain about A, B and C. O.k., maybe I don't get it. If you can elaborate I will listen.

victory · 06-26-2008, 01:07 PM

You have hit some hard facts there, but true, very true. On the other hand, some disagree and say its the Republicans:

http://hypocrisy.com/2008/06/25/welc...ergy-solution/

Willravel · 06-26-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Care to elaborate? Host's position is clear, Bush lied, therefore...what? If I believe a person is a lier, I don't believe them...ever. I never act on what they say...ever. I always do my own homework. Saying Bush lied over and over is B.S. Perhaps you can say it once.

Bush and/or those he is directly responsible for misrepresented the situation with Iraq by omitting intelligence that would have put the operation in question and by hyping information that supported it. In that way they are responsible.

Congress voted to declare war, so they are responsible.

dc_dux · 06-27-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Congress voted to declare war, so they are responsible.

There was no Declaration of War, but rather two separate Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) ...one the week after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in pursuit of al Queda and one, 13 months later, to invade Iraq, sold in large part, on misinformation, cherrypicked information and information withheld from Congress.

In any case, an AUMF authorizes a president to use the Armed Forces of the United States.....

It does not give a president the authorization to direct the NSA to wiretap citizens w/o warrant as Bush attempted to claim.

It does not give a president the authorization to direct the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are recognized in international treaties as torture, as Bush attempted to claim.

The CIA and NSA are NOT part of the Armed Forces of the United States.

And it does not give a president the authority to ignore the Uniform Code of Military Justice or Geneva Conventions as applied to the rights of detainees in military prisons....as Bush attempted to claim and the USSC overuled on three separate occasions.

Cynthetiq · 06-27-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There was no Declaration of War, but rather two separate Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) ...one the week after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in pursuit of al Queda and one, 13 months later, to invade Iraq, sold in large part, on misinformation, cherrypicked information and information withheld from Congress.

In any case, an AUMF authorizes a president to use the Armed Forces of the United States.....

It does not give a president the authorization to direct the NSA to wiretap citizens w/o warrant as Bush attempted to claim.

It does not give a president the authorization to direct the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are recognized in international treaties as torture, as Bush attempted to claim.

The CIA and NSA are NOT part of the Armed Forces of the United States.

And it does not give a president the authority to ignore the Uniform Code of Military Justice or Geneva Conventions as applied to the rights of detainees....as Bush attempted to claim and the USSC overuled on three separate occasions.

Thank you for that clarification and summarization. It made it really easy for me to understand all the points that I had wrong.

dc_dux · 06-27-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The issue is when there is conflict with FISA and other legislation. I think Bush used war authority to defend his actions. Congress authorizing the use of military force, etc, was pretty open ended, don't you agree?

It comes down to this....the AUMFs authorize the use of military force...there is NO etc, etc.

There was no sweeping "war authority" that is limited solely to a formal Declaration of War and there was no "open ended" authorization to use the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc outside of existing law.

Testimony from Alberto gonzales in 2006 demonstrate how this administration operated:

Quote:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

...alll the while knowing that he and Bush had already unilaterally determined that the AUMF gave the president the authority to go beyond just the use of military force and authorize warrantless wiretapping by the NSA for the four previous years.

aceventura3 · 06-27-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It comes down to this....the AUMFs authorize the use of military force...there is NO etc, etc.

First what does this mean to you from the AUMF?

Quote:

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

Second, are you saying this did not give Bush the authority to do just about whatever he wanted to do regarding the "...threat posed by Iraq..."

Quote:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

Don't you agree that in hindsight Congress gave Bush too much authority? And given they did not really declare war that the wording of this resolution was too vague? And then how do you conclude there is no "etc." regarding this issue alone?

In my view of this Congress gave Bush an open ended opportunity to do whatever he wanted to do regarding the "Iraq threat". O.k., let's assume that was a mistake and Congress felt Bush lied and was abusing his open ended authority. What happened next? A series of funding authorizations, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress ever redefine Bush's authority, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress revoke the open ended authority, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress seriously take up the issue of impeachment for perceived crimes and abuses by Bush, in spite of the rhetoric? Perhaps, it is not that extreme to conclude the rhetoric is and was B.S.

06-25-2008, 12:01 PM	#84 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I understood what you said, Cynthetiq. Explaining it to me further hasn't handled my disgust. Neither Gandhi nor King "voluntarily suffered death", by the way. They were both assassinated. Just so you've got your history straight. MASSIVE difference between killing for your values and being killed for them. I wouldn't call either of them martyrs, in the sense generally meant by the term. Last edited by ratbastid; 06-25-2008 at 12:06 PM..

06-25-2008, 12:18 PM	#89 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Cyn, I for one see your point and sort of agree. Perhaps a better definition of a martyr would include that the observer agrees with the actor's decisions and politics. Which means that Joan of Arc isn't a martyr anymore. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-25-2008, 12:22 PM	#90 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Also, keep in mind that Ghandi, King and other who had great accomplishments through the use of nonviolence, had leverage that gave them the power to make demands. In both cases they certainly had what was right on their side, but it was the possibility of great civil unrest and violence that added to their leverage. I would say they used a non-violent approach to accomplishing their goals, but in the end we don't know if they would have sanctioned violence. I know King had no objections to the national guard being used to protect children going to school, hence the threatened use of violence to protect life and liberty. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-26-2008, 04:11 AM	#100 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah--it's a little strange---if you have not particularly found the construction of obama as some left-type to be more than a conservative hallucination, there's not a whole lot to talk about in the fisa bill matter, simply because it follows--not from a facile cynicism regarding "politicians" in general, but from his own politics. my position is that obama appears to be part of a less self-enclosed, self-confirming ideological world than mccain, who is obviously in a position of trying to find some way to simultaneously distance himself from and maintain continuity with the delusional space of populist conservatism of the past 30 years. but i don't see obama as offering anything remotely like an alternate ideology to neoliberalism, anything like a viewpoint that i can say will result in coherence in the face of structural problems---but the fact that his is a more open position leads me to think he might be able to respond coherently, where mccain will not. i also dont see obama as holding the bush people to account for much. my suspicion is that this would follow from the requirements of maintaining system legitimacy--there are limits to how far one could personalize the disaster that has been the past 8 years, associate it with the "bad apples" of the bush administration and thereby limit it to a question of individuals deviating from a trajectory otherwise rational, operating within a system that is otherwise legitimate. but i didn't expect anything. i can't say as i'm disappointed. what seems different with host is that there's a degree of disappointment i sense lurking about inside the anger. but maybe i'm wrong. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-26-2008, 06:51 AM	#102 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i don't know if you can say denial, really. for example, i don't at all see dc as being "in denial" about much of anything--but his view tends to be shaped by a particular relation, a particular space of activity which i generally find to be interesting. at the same time, the question of how one positions stuff at a more general level continually crops up in my mind as i read his posts--but this seems an ongoing trade-off, not something wherein the position he writes from precludes a wider view. and there is something to be said for operating within the realm of what seems possible....its the old social democratic line, in the left tradition. and it can function to make peoples' lives materially better. my basic position is that all such positions, in the micro-level and at the macro-level, would be helped alot with sustained, coherent pressure from positions to the left of what currently exists. in that respect, putting stuff up in a space like this is at best a type of practicing---what we really ought to be doing is figuring out how to get information out into the wider world. but i keep wandering off into ontology and salt marshes lately. i think there's a linkage (undermine the philosophical suppositions that enable what i take to be the dominant ideology/-ies)...but sometimes i think it'd be better to shift back into the trenches more. but this artsy stuff is fun. who can say what's the best way to do anything? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-25-2008, 11:49 AM	#82 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	In a discussion about nonviolence you tried to re-frame the discussion by switching to martyrdom and in that same post you compared the man in Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber. Two very bright people came to the exact same conclusion about your comparison, Cynth. It may be time for self reflection.

06-26-2008, 06:30 AM	#101 (permalink)
host Banned	rb, I don't think it's disappointment that I am feeling....I never had high expectations about Obama. I shared hope with some here that change had begun after election night' 2006. Now, I read what Obama said lasr week in reaction to the fealty for Bush policy from Hoyer and Pelosi, then the reactions posted to my posts on this thread.....and finally, I read this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../26/olbermann/ ...and I feel like my effing head is gonna explode. There are possibly four of us here who think US politics are dominated by two right wing parties....and the rest are politically, in denial...

06-26-2008, 06:56 AM	#103 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I disagree in the denial as well. I'm in full acceptance that politicians are going to waffle on issues, lie, cheat, steal, cronyism, nepotism, war and all that comes with it. I think that we somehow were sold a bill of goods that the forefathers put forth a system that isn't corrupt or fallible. People are, and until there's a major change in the human condition, will continue to be so. host are there any politicians that are acceptable to you? In my view for me, there are no politicians that are acceptable, most are just tolerable. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-26-2008, 07:15 AM	#104 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, I am not clear on some things about your point of view. Did you or do you believe the rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders regarding their sentiments against the actions and decisions made by the Bush administration? How much of their rhetoric do you think was based on principles compared to politically grandstanding? I always found it interesting how you would call Bush a lier, when anyone paying attention knew what Bush wanted, what he was going to do and when he was going to do it, but up until now you have given Democrats a pass for saying things like: we did not know that authorizing the use of military force would lead to war, that continually funding an occupation of Iraq would mean troops would continue to be in Iraq, that approving the appointment of a General who supported a surge would lead to a surge, etc, etc, etc. Why all of a sudden are you surprised. Democrats have had a pattern over the pass 8 years of saying one thing and doing another. I am surprised people have not been outraged by that. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-26-2008, 07:19 AM	#105 (permalink)
host Banned	"acceptable, Cynthetiq?" Yes....some politicians are even praiseworthy, IMO. There is a subcommittee hearing taking place this AM as I'm posting this... some of the named congressional reps at that hearing, are to be lauded: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...-yoo/#comments I still am an admirer of Sen. Russ Feingold. I lost some regard for him....I posted about it two months ago....when he went off in a taped Q&A on one of his constituents who asked him if his strong support for Israel was really in the best interests of the US.... Last edited by host; 06-26-2008 at 07:26 AM..

06-26-2008, 07:28 AM	#106 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Frank and Conyers? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-26-2008, 08:25 AM	#108 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I don't object to Conyers very much, again, I see it as tolerable. I didn't see the longer list of contributors, I just saw the transcript names. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-26-2008, 11:36 AM	#112 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, Your response to my question suggests that you insist that Democratic party leaders and others who were paying attention had no awareness of Bush's agenda to invade Iraq prior to the invasion. That the Democratic party leaders and others paying attention had no awareness of Bush's intent to occupy and to spread democracy in Iraq after the initial invasion, as they continually funded the occupation and provided funds for the spreading of democracy in Iraq. That that key Democratic party leaders in particular had no awareness of Bush's aggressive interpretation of his war powers that he used to justify what many call violations of the FISA legislation. That key Democratic party leaders and anyone paying attention had no awareness until the recent Supreme Court ruling that enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay were being held without the writ of habeas corpus as afforded to US citizens under the US Constitution. Given the above and some other items, you actually want me to believe that by simply saying Bush lied absolves Democratic party leaders and anyone paying attention of any responsibility - making them victims and that it allows them to say one thing and do another or do nothing? I got it. And, I am not the one in denial. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-26-2008, 12:01 PM	#113 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They're not absolved, but they don't share in the same responsibility.

06-26-2008, 01:07 PM	#115 (permalink)
victory Upright Location: Midwest	You have hit some hard facts there, but true, very true. On the other hand, some disagree and say its the Republicans: http://hypocrisy.com/2008/06/25/welc...ergy-solution/