GratisNet: "'In the history of the world, several great civilizations that seemed immortal have deteriorated and died. I don't want to seem dramatic tonight, but I've lived a long while, and for the first time in my life, I have this faint, faraway fear that it could happen to us here in America as it happened to the Greek and Roman civilizations.
'Too many Americans don't understand what we have here, or how to keep it. I worry for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren. I want them to have what I've had, and I sense it slipping away.'
Andy Rooney 60 Minutes (CBS) May, 2004
Andy Rooney is not the only person having such thoughts in these times. I, too, have the fear but it is not faint, nor far away but rather perilously close as long as Bush and his gang of fascists are in power. It is close as long as otherwise good, solid, patriotic citizens cannot or will not recognize the current regime for what it is.
Mark this well, for when America falls, it will be a long and hard fall and there will be no country in this world that will render assistance and that will be a measure of just how much Bush and his band of fascist miscreants have alienated the world. Squandering the massive goodwill built by our people since WW2 was not enough for these thugs, they had to act in such ways that brought scorn and derision from our former allies.
This regime has brought new meaning to the phrase, 'Ugly American' and in fact makes the novel of the same name seem like a fairy tale for preschool children."
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Be on the alert
GratisNet: "Now is the time to be on the alert for other manifestations of the unamerican agenda of the Bush regime. While the proposed destruction of Social Security is being fought tooth and nail, it would behoove everyone not to forget that the attack on Social Security could well be a feint by Bush to keep the opposition engaged while ramming through the rest of his objectionable ideas.
Increased drilling in the ANWAR is one such idea. It matters not that even the most optimistic estimates for the reserves to be found there equate to less than a year of national consumption. It matters not that the damage to the environment, both flora and fauna will be extensive and, in fact has already been extensive in those areas of the arctic that have been exploited over the past 30 years. No, all that matters is that Bush repay his supporters in the oil bidness.
Updating, a quaint turn of a word, the Patriot Act to extend the duration and power of the regime to spy on its citizens, citizens who have done nothing, except perhaps engage in our constitutionally, and God given right of, dissent in opposing the unamerican activities of this increasingly despotic regime.
Introducing National Drivers License/ID legislation to make it stunningly easy to keep track of citizens. Perhaps this legislation is a precursor to an Internal Passport similar to that used by the former USSR to control their citizens. There already is more than adequate cooperation among the states regarding Drivers Licenses/IDs for wasn't that the object behind the reciprocal agreements made between the states, agreements to make their information available to one another upon showing adequate cause? There are those who would say that given the extent of the states cooperation, what would be the harm in a national system when we defacto have one now? The harm is quite simply this, under the current system it requires any number of state organizations to pass on requests for data, under the proposed legislation, that power would be given to one agency and as has been demonstrated amply in the past and most especially in the Bush regime, such power would be abused.
Contact your representative and senators to fight these and other intrusions by the Bush regime upon our national treasures, including the most precious of our treaures, our privacy and freedom."
Increased drilling in the ANWAR is one such idea. It matters not that even the most optimistic estimates for the reserves to be found there equate to less than a year of national consumption. It matters not that the damage to the environment, both flora and fauna will be extensive and, in fact has already been extensive in those areas of the arctic that have been exploited over the past 30 years. No, all that matters is that Bush repay his supporters in the oil bidness.
Updating, a quaint turn of a word, the Patriot Act to extend the duration and power of the regime to spy on its citizens, citizens who have done nothing, except perhaps engage in our constitutionally, and God given right of, dissent in opposing the unamerican activities of this increasingly despotic regime.
Introducing National Drivers License/ID legislation to make it stunningly easy to keep track of citizens. Perhaps this legislation is a precursor to an Internal Passport similar to that used by the former USSR to control their citizens. There already is more than adequate cooperation among the states regarding Drivers Licenses/IDs for wasn't that the object behind the reciprocal agreements made between the states, agreements to make their information available to one another upon showing adequate cause? There are those who would say that given the extent of the states cooperation, what would be the harm in a national system when we defacto have one now? The harm is quite simply this, under the current system it requires any number of state organizations to pass on requests for data, under the proposed legislation, that power would be given to one agency and as has been demonstrated amply in the past and most especially in the Bush regime, such power would be abused.
Contact your representative and senators to fight these and other intrusions by the Bush regime upon our national treasures, including the most precious of our treaures, our privacy and freedom."
Monday, February 14, 2005
PERRspectives Blog: Bush on the Couch
PERRspectives Blog: Bush on the Couch: "I agree with Joe. To borrow from Churchill, Never before has someone with so little to offer been given so much and done so little with it.
Posted by Jared on Wonkette February 11, 2005 02:37 PM"
Right on Jared!
Posted by Jared on Wonkette February 11, 2005 02:37 PM"
Right on Jared!
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
What it means to be a Liberal.
GratisNet: Being a Liberal means having respect for the rights and opinions of others, even when those opinions are opposite yours and most especially when they are being shouted at you. Being a Liberal means having respect for the idea of equality, equality in education, equality in opportunity, equality in employment and equality at the ballot box. Being a Liberal means having the desire to promote the welfare of the people, all the people, and not being afraid or ashamed to admit that at times, government is the only organization large enough and strong enough to do the job.
Can anyone seriously imagine that minorities would have the right to vote, have the unlimited use of public facilities, etc. without the civil rights movement of the sixties, a movement that was driven by people proud to wear the label of Liberal? Being a liberal means believing in all those things that motivated the Founding Fathers to revolt against King George and those who would deny that simple truth are playing fast and loose with the history of those tumultuous times.
Finally, being a Liberal means that we are our brother's keeper, we do have an obligation, as a society, to help those who, for whatever reason, have fallen upon bad times and we most assuredly have a moral obligation to ensure that our elderly citizens can experience their twilight years with security and dignity. Being a Liberal means living the morality expounded in the tenets of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as those of Islam and the religions of the East. In other words, being a Liberal can be expressed as the ultimate morality, ie: Doing unto others as you would have done to you.
So the next time you hear someone from the "I've got mine and the hell with you" conservative crowd speak of morals and patriotism, remind them of what it means to be a Liberal and remind them that their political philosophy was wrong for America in 1776, for it was the philosophy of the Loyalists of that time, and it is most certainly wrong for America in 2005 and beyond.
Can anyone seriously imagine that minorities would have the right to vote, have the unlimited use of public facilities, etc. without the civil rights movement of the sixties, a movement that was driven by people proud to wear the label of Liberal? Being a liberal means believing in all those things that motivated the Founding Fathers to revolt against King George and those who would deny that simple truth are playing fast and loose with the history of those tumultuous times.
Finally, being a Liberal means that we are our brother's keeper, we do have an obligation, as a society, to help those who, for whatever reason, have fallen upon bad times and we most assuredly have a moral obligation to ensure that our elderly citizens can experience their twilight years with security and dignity. Being a Liberal means living the morality expounded in the tenets of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as those of Islam and the religions of the East. In other words, being a Liberal can be expressed as the ultimate morality, ie: Doing unto others as you would have done to you.
So the next time you hear someone from the "I've got mine and the hell with you" conservative crowd speak of morals and patriotism, remind them of what it means to be a Liberal and remind them that their political philosophy was wrong for America in 1776, for it was the philosophy of the Loyalists of that time, and it is most certainly wrong for America in 2005 and beyond.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Bush Stiffs Veterans, farmers, kids and the needy.
GratisNet: "The latest budget offered by the Lyin' King cuts pretty much everything in order to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted by the most anti-american regime ever to hold power in the nations history. Educational funding, cut. Programs for the needy, cut. Programs for family farmers, cut. and of course big budget cuts at the VA in addition to higher charges for services it provides.
The copay for prescriptions will increase over 200%. There will be an annual fee of $250 just to access the system for some classes of veterans. The net result of this will be reduced access to medical care for elderly and not so elderly veterans. This is the sorry excuse for a man that convinced veterans that he cared about them, that he alone would never forget them or the sacrifices they made. He lied!
To all veterans who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote, now?' To all Christians who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'After his slashing programs for the elderly, the poor, education and the unemployed I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote now?
When will the so called Moral Majority wake up and realise that the Lyin' King acts in a manner directly contradictory to the teachings of their Jesus Christ? None are so blind as those who will not see!"
The copay for prescriptions will increase over 200%. There will be an annual fee of $250 just to access the system for some classes of veterans. The net result of this will be reduced access to medical care for elderly and not so elderly veterans. This is the sorry excuse for a man that convinced veterans that he cared about them, that he alone would never forget them or the sacrifices they made. He lied!
To all veterans who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote, now?' To all Christians who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'After his slashing programs for the elderly, the poor, education and the unemployed I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote now?
When will the so called Moral Majority wake up and realise that the Lyin' King acts in a manner directly contradictory to the teachings of their Jesus Christ? None are so blind as those who will not see!"
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Bush's "plan" for Social Security is a con job.
GratisNet: "From today's Washington Post:
Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.
So there you have it. You save and Bush takes for unlike the real deal of FDR's Social Security where barring your demise, you receive every penny you paid into the system, in the example above not only will you get screwed out of the rate of return on your savings, Bush's plan also takes 47.25% of the money that you had withheld. That isn't the government's money (to borrow a favorite GOPig phrase), it's your money.
How do you like them apples? Tell me again how Bush and his gang of thugs are looking out for the average American."
Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.
So there you have it. You save and Bush takes for unlike the real deal of FDR's Social Security where barring your demise, you receive every penny you paid into the system, in the example above not only will you get screwed out of the rate of return on your savings, Bush's plan also takes 47.25% of the money that you had withheld. That isn't the government's money (to borrow a favorite GOPig phrase), it's your money.
How do you like them apples? Tell me again how Bush and his gang of thugs are looking out for the average American."
State of the Union
GratisNet: "Has there ever been such innuendo, half truths and outright lies given in an SOTU? Not in my 64 years do I remember such a load of bovine excrement put before the American people.
These people have no shame. These people have no honor. These people have no ethics. The childish nonsense with the purple fingertips is a prime example of the form over substance problem in the Republican party. They no more have the interest of America and Americans at heart then does Osama bin Forgotten.
As for the privatizat... uh, personaliza... uh, 'reform' of the highly successful and solvent Social Security system, remember the term 'benefit offset' for it is an integral part of the Bush plan to kill the most successful program to protect seniors in the nations history. Simply put, any funds in your (pick one) personal or private account at the time of retirement that are in excess of the amount you are slated to receive during said retirement, shall be returned to the government. Cute, huh? Is it any wonder why the accomplished liar did not mention it last night?
From the Washington Post:
Even more curiously, a 'senior administration official' who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don't think will play well in Peoria. Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new 'personal' or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a 'benefit offset.' It's one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.
'...it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.' Duh! ya think? Does their balloon ever land? Do these people ever engage their brains when dreaming up the schemes to defraud the people? You can be sure of two things regarding the 'reform' of Social Security: 1. Their 'reform' is not reform as it is defined in Webster's. 2. There will be no security in Social Security when they finish with it.
The Liar in Chief mentioned FDR last night. I have news for the Lyin' King, as a child, I remember FDR and he most assuredly isn't him! In fact he couldn't carry the soiled underwear of that great president."
These people have no shame. These people have no honor. These people have no ethics. The childish nonsense with the purple fingertips is a prime example of the form over substance problem in the Republican party. They no more have the interest of America and Americans at heart then does Osama bin Forgotten.
As for the privatizat... uh, personaliza... uh, 'reform' of the highly successful and solvent Social Security system, remember the term 'benefit offset' for it is an integral part of the Bush plan to kill the most successful program to protect seniors in the nations history. Simply put, any funds in your (pick one) personal or private account at the time of retirement that are in excess of the amount you are slated to receive during said retirement, shall be returned to the government. Cute, huh? Is it any wonder why the accomplished liar did not mention it last night?
From the Washington Post:
Even more curiously, a 'senior administration official' who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don't think will play well in Peoria. Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new 'personal' or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a 'benefit offset.' It's one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.
'...it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.' Duh! ya think? Does their balloon ever land? Do these people ever engage their brains when dreaming up the schemes to defraud the people? You can be sure of two things regarding the 'reform' of Social Security: 1. Their 'reform' is not reform as it is defined in Webster's. 2. There will be no security in Social Security when they finish with it.
The Liar in Chief mentioned FDR last night. I have news for the Lyin' King, as a child, I remember FDR and he most assuredly isn't him! In fact he couldn't carry the soiled underwear of that great president."
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
CRS report on proposed Price-Indexing Social Security Benefits.
The Congressional Research Service issued a report titled, Estimated Effect of Price-Indexing Social Security Benefits on the Number of Americans 65 and Older in Poverty.
The report reads in part, "...the Congressional Research Service has estimated the effects that a specific cut in Social Security benefits would have had on the number of Americans age 65 and older with incomes below the federal poverty threshold in 2003. As you specified the benefit cut would be based on the ratio of the consumer price index to the average national wage index, using 1940 as the base for both indices."
The result, which can be viewed at CRS Report shows that had Bush's plan been in effect during 2003, some 7 million more seniors ( a 300% increase) would have found themselves below the poverty line. Can there be any doubt, given the fact that the CRS is a non-partisan unit of the congress, as to the damage the proposed plan would do to Americas seniors?
Is this what is meant by compassionate conservatism? Remember the old adage regarding numbers and liars when considering the CRS report and Bush's claims regarding Social Security. The figures don't lie but liars figure. They figure they can confuse you with numbers which also brings to mind another old saying.
When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
The report reads in part, "...the Congressional Research Service has estimated the effects that a specific cut in Social Security benefits would have had on the number of Americans age 65 and older with incomes below the federal poverty threshold in 2003. As you specified the benefit cut would be based on the ratio of the consumer price index to the average national wage index, using 1940 as the base for both indices."
The result, which can be viewed at CRS Report shows that had Bush's plan been in effect during 2003, some 7 million more seniors ( a 300% increase) would have found themselves below the poverty line. Can there be any doubt, given the fact that the CRS is a non-partisan unit of the congress, as to the damage the proposed plan would do to Americas seniors?
Is this what is meant by compassionate conservatism? Remember the old adage regarding numbers and liars when considering the CRS report and Bush's claims regarding Social Security. The figures don't lie but liars figure. They figure they can confuse you with numbers which also brings to mind another old saying.
When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Too stupid for words
GratisNet: "Fred Barnes, 'for the editors' in the Weekly Standard: The media tolerate or even encourage Democratic rage. But the White House can't afford to. Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president's entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. Too much is at stake to wait for another Democratic defeat in 2006.
So tell me again how the miscreants on the right are not fascists and traitors to what America stands for?"
So tell me again how the miscreants on the right are not fascists and traitors to what America stands for?"
Monday, January 31, 2005
Iraqi election
GratisNet: "The Iraqi election is history. Despite reports of the Kurds importing 10,000 or so 'voters' to Kirkuk in order to inflate their numbers of representatives in the government and the continually 'downsizing' of the estimate of voter participation, before anyone even has a clue as to how many votes were cast, from the initial giddy 90% to the current and probably still slightly inflated 40-45%, the process seemed to have worked reasonably well. One fact that will not be mentioned by the media or the Bush regime is that security, for the most part, was provided by the Iraqis themselves with US forces having little or nothing to do with guarding polling places, etc..
It will take 6-8 weeks to count the vote and one thing is certain, there will be minimal Sunni participation in the 'new' government and that fact, in itself, bodes ill for the stability and security if the 'new' Iraq (to borrow the term from the 'new' CNN). One can only hope that the long suffering Iraqi people, Shi'ites, Kurds, Christians and Sunnis will, at long last, find the security with freedom that they desire. Of course, this hopeful start on the road to self determination in Iraq can still be derailed for as we have learned in our past 3 election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004) it isn't the votes that count, it 's those who count the votes that matter.
What happens if the unthinkable occurs? What will be the result if the newly elected Iraqi government as its first order of business chooses to direct America to end the occupation and withdraw? They could well do this as a result of Iraqi security forces having done a more than adequate job yesterday, a job which served to underscore that they are not dependent upon a foreign occupying power to protect them. Does anyone harbor the slightest thought that the Bush regime will comply? What will a refusal mean for Iraq? What will a refusal mean for America? Stay tuned for while the events of yesterday were indeed hopeful, the events of the next few months will hold the key to the prospect of peace, freedom and security in Iraq."
It will take 6-8 weeks to count the vote and one thing is certain, there will be minimal Sunni participation in the 'new' government and that fact, in itself, bodes ill for the stability and security if the 'new' Iraq (to borrow the term from the 'new' CNN). One can only hope that the long suffering Iraqi people, Shi'ites, Kurds, Christians and Sunnis will, at long last, find the security with freedom that they desire. Of course, this hopeful start on the road to self determination in Iraq can still be derailed for as we have learned in our past 3 election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004) it isn't the votes that count, it 's those who count the votes that matter.
What happens if the unthinkable occurs? What will be the result if the newly elected Iraqi government as its first order of business chooses to direct America to end the occupation and withdraw? They could well do this as a result of Iraqi security forces having done a more than adequate job yesterday, a job which served to underscore that they are not dependent upon a foreign occupying power to protect them. Does anyone harbor the slightest thought that the Bush regime will comply? What will a refusal mean for Iraq? What will a refusal mean for America? Stay tuned for while the events of yesterday were indeed hopeful, the events of the next few months will hold the key to the prospect of peace, freedom and security in Iraq."
Friday, January 28, 2005
Bait and switch
GratisNet: "Listen up everyone, privatizing Social Security is out. Personal accounts are in.
You can always tell when C-plus Augustus knows he is in deep caca. He uses semantics in an effort to hide the ball, as it were. Then as if by magic, right on cue, all those on the GOPig Talking Point distribution list (including all of Fox News) begin parroting the new line. Do these incompetent liars ever tire of these tactics? Sadly the answer is no for they have a long history of saying one thing while meaning another.
Remember the rule of thumb when dealing with republicans in general and uber conservatives in particular. Everything they say about anything are lies, if their lips are moving the possiblity of their prevaricating approaches certainty.
Social Security is not in need of draconian remedies any more than a car needs to be traded in because it has low pressure in one or more tires."
You can always tell when C-plus Augustus knows he is in deep caca. He uses semantics in an effort to hide the ball, as it were. Then as if by magic, right on cue, all those on the GOPig Talking Point distribution list (including all of Fox News) begin parroting the new line. Do these incompetent liars ever tire of these tactics? Sadly the answer is no for they have a long history of saying one thing while meaning another.
Remember the rule of thumb when dealing with republicans in general and uber conservatives in particular. Everything they say about anything are lies, if their lips are moving the possiblity of their prevaricating approaches certainty.
Social Security is not in need of draconian remedies any more than a car needs to be traded in because it has low pressure in one or more tires."
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Mencken was right.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
—H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920"
—H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920"
Unfit to serve.
GratisNet: "Can there be any doubt as to the unfitness of Alberto Gonzales to serve in any capacity, let alone Attorney General after the revelations of two lawyers and a judge relating to his testimony regarding Bush's successful attempt to be kept off of jury duty during his run for Texas governor? Can there be any doubt that Gonzales is a confirmed liar and perjurer with a malformed sense of decency?
The fact that Gonzales never tried a case speaks to his monumental unqualification for the job but even that diminishes to near insignificance when compared to his being totally devoid of the merest shred of decency, ethics and honor. Remember this was the man who gave Bush his opinions regarding the executions in Texas, opinions which show beyond all doubt that this man, like Bush, enjoys the prospect of death as long as it is some poor, wretched, preferably minority (especially female) individual doing the dying.
I would urge the Senate democrats to say, in as strong terms as possible, NO to this sorry excuse of a man."
The fact that Gonzales never tried a case speaks to his monumental unqualification for the job but even that diminishes to near insignificance when compared to his being totally devoid of the merest shred of decency, ethics and honor. Remember this was the man who gave Bush his opinions regarding the executions in Texas, opinions which show beyond all doubt that this man, like Bush, enjoys the prospect of death as long as it is some poor, wretched, preferably minority (especially female) individual doing the dying.
I would urge the Senate democrats to say, in as strong terms as possible, NO to this sorry excuse of a man."
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
GratisNet
GratisNet: "I shall be away for a week. Time to visit our oldest son in Hollywood (Florida) and soak up some sun (temperatures a bit warmer than here in Orlando) and reap the benefits of the salt air (his home is within walking distance of the beach). We shall try to be true to the South Beach Diet but the famous Angelo's Pizza on the beach and the many fine restaurants on Hollywood Circle will be difficult to resist.
So until next week, remember that anything the corrupt gang of criminals of the Bush maladministration says about everything is untrue. From the debate on Social Security to the Iraq War of Agression, everything these clowns bloviate about are bold faced lies. Rule of thumb, if their lips are moving, they are lying, after all they are republicans and conservatives."
So until next week, remember that anything the corrupt gang of criminals of the Bush maladministration says about everything is untrue. From the debate on Social Security to the Iraq War of Agression, everything these clowns bloviate about are bold faced lies. Rule of thumb, if their lips are moving, they are lying, after all they are republicans and conservatives."
Monday, January 17, 2005
The real deal!
From the New York Times magazine 01-16-05:
In 1938, the Social Security Act was only three years old, but its future was already very much in doubt. Conservatives claimed it would bankrupt the nation, and independent critics argued that the way it was financed amounted to ''financial hocus-pocus,'' as one editorial in The New York Times put it. President Franklin D. Roosevelt defended the program, said by a cabinet member to be his favorite, with some of his trademark oratory. ''Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security,'' the president told a national radio audience, ''government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones.''
Read the full article here
Conservatives have been trying to derail Social Security since its inception. Let's not let their lies and half-truths finally do the job!"
In 1938, the Social Security Act was only three years old, but its future was already very much in doubt. Conservatives claimed it would bankrupt the nation, and independent critics argued that the way it was financed amounted to ''financial hocus-pocus,'' as one editorial in The New York Times put it. President Franklin D. Roosevelt defended the program, said by a cabinet member to be his favorite, with some of his trademark oratory. ''Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security,'' the president told a national radio audience, ''government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones.''
Read the full article here
Conservatives have been trying to derail Social Security since its inception. Let's not let their lies and half-truths finally do the job!"
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Rogue nation on the loose
"The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday. The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.
Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, 'The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.' One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, 'This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign'."
Tell me again who the rogue nation is in this scenario. Tell me again which nation is committing an act of war upon another. Forget the fact that the army is near breaking, as are the reserves and National Guard, now we have 'The civilians in the Pentagon' wanting to go to war with Iran. How about we tell those ignorant, arrogant bastards that if they have a hardon for war with Iran so badly, let them get their cowardly asses down to an enlistment office and sign up for the first wave of the invasion force.
These neocon thugs have learned nothing from the growing mess in Iraq, while in a textbook example of hubris, The Lyin' King asserts that the 'accountability' question, regarding the war, was settled by the 2004 election. According to this sorry excuse for a man, America said it was OK for him and his gang of criminals to have lied about WMD in order to get the war of aggression against Iraq in motion. Good grief, when will the people of America wake up and realize just how arrogant and devoid of ethics these cowardly little fascists of the regime of the Lyin' King truly are and how terrible the day of retribution will be for these transgressions, when they are ultimately delivered upon us? Sadly not soon enough if a visit to Freeperland or Wingnutville to read the rantings of the small minded, ethically challenged, mean spirited conservatives posted there are in any way typical of what passes for coherent thought in republican circles today. Of course it is understood that 'coherent thought' and 'republican' appearing in the same sentence would be the mother of all oxymorons."
Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, 'The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.' One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, 'This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign'."
Tell me again who the rogue nation is in this scenario. Tell me again which nation is committing an act of war upon another. Forget the fact that the army is near breaking, as are the reserves and National Guard, now we have 'The civilians in the Pentagon' wanting to go to war with Iran. How about we tell those ignorant, arrogant bastards that if they have a hardon for war with Iran so badly, let them get their cowardly asses down to an enlistment office and sign up for the first wave of the invasion force.
These neocon thugs have learned nothing from the growing mess in Iraq, while in a textbook example of hubris, The Lyin' King asserts that the 'accountability' question, regarding the war, was settled by the 2004 election. According to this sorry excuse for a man, America said it was OK for him and his gang of criminals to have lied about WMD in order to get the war of aggression against Iraq in motion. Good grief, when will the people of America wake up and realize just how arrogant and devoid of ethics these cowardly little fascists of the regime of the Lyin' King truly are and how terrible the day of retribution will be for these transgressions, when they are ultimately delivered upon us? Sadly not soon enough if a visit to Freeperland or Wingnutville to read the rantings of the small minded, ethically challenged, mean spirited conservatives posted there are in any way typical of what passes for coherent thought in republican circles today. Of course it is understood that 'coherent thought' and 'republican' appearing in the same sentence would be the mother of all oxymorons."
Destroying antiquities
DAWN - Front Page; 16 January, 2005: "LONDON, Jan 15: US-led forces, using Iraq's ancient city of Babylon as a military base, have caused 'substantial damage' to one of the world's most renowned archaeological treasures, a British Museum report said. ..."
Like barbarians throughout the ages, US forces seem bent on destroying as much of the antiquities still present in Babylon as they can.
Even the NAZIs left Rome rather than defend it and have it destroyed.
Unbelievable how far this regime of thugs and criminals has brought America down. The Lyin' King knows no shame.
Like barbarians throughout the ages, US forces seem bent on destroying as much of the antiquities still present in Babylon as they can.
Even the NAZIs left Rome rather than defend it and have it destroyed.
Unbelievable how far this regime of thugs and criminals has brought America down. The Lyin' King knows no shame.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Truth in advertising?
I have seen the first Bush regime ad against Social Security this morning and as is their practice, it is a monument to half truths.
They are careful to explain that while there were many workers per recipient to support the program at its inception, calamity of calamities, there will only be two workers per retiree when the baby boomers all retire. While this is all true, they also seem to omit a number of facts regarding the solvency of the system.
The system was adjusted, twice, in the last 25 years to ensure the viablity by increasing the payroll taxes so that a larger surplus would be building toward the time when the boomers began retiring. I will not get into specifics because Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo and others have pretty much proven the case against the Lyin' King's attempt to fulfill the biggest and most ardent republican wish of the past 70 years. Suffice it to say that in addition to the CBO, reputable economists have noted that the system is solvent through 2042 and beyond. Beginning in 2018, however, the "Trust Fund" will begin to be used to help pay benefits. Of course, the Lyin' King and his gang of fascists would like nothing more than to have you forget about that. You have heard the arguments about how the Trust Fund isn't really an asset because it holds "Special" Treasury Bonds, etc.
Think about this, if those "Special" bonds, backed by, "The full faith and credit of the United States" are deemed worthless, what does that say to every treasury bond backed by the same promise? How will that affect those people, companies and nations who purchase them and in the doing, finance our burgeoning debt? Will it be likely to inhibit them from buying again, after all if the US is willing to default on its obligation to its own citizens, why would they hesitate to do the same for outlanders? Take this to the bank, the Lyin' King financed his tax cuts to the wealthy using the Social Security Trust Fund, as well as other government funds, proving yet again that for republicans, when it comes to trust and concern for the people, they have neither. Never have, never will. Some things just don't change with time.
Consider this, if you will, conservatives were the loyalists during our War Of Independence. They were "patriots" alright, but their patriotism was to God and King George. Hmmm, as I said, some things seem not to have changed much but one thing is perfectly clear, conservatives and their philosophy were wrong for America in 1776 and they sure as hell are wrong for it now.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Values?
Tired of hearing the right wing blow their horn about having values? The next time you get into it with a right wing blowhard, or ERWBDC (Extreme Right Wing Brain Dead Conservative), consider:
Which values are being demonstrated by allowing the disenfranchisement of voters?
Stopping the vote whenever possible demonstrates what value system, exactly? Other than fascism, that is.
Which values are exemplified by using lies, and worse, trying to do away with Social Security (FDR'S greatest social accomplishment) arguably the greatest social program in the history of western civilization?
Name the values one must believe in to take away the safety net of needy seniors.
Identify the values involved in ceasing to help dependent children who have had the misfortune of losing one or both parents.
List the values that one must have in order to decrease funding for the public school system using the now discredited Leave No Child Behind program, a program that could more accurately be named, Leave No Conservative Commentator behind given the Armstrong Williams scandal.
What values are those which makes the use bribery to acquire the lies of pundits to be used in support of questionable programs, acceptable?
What is said of the values of "leaders" who will obfuscate, flip-flop, and outright lie in order to promote a war of aggression upon innocent people?
Last, but not least, what can be said about the values of the people who support such disgraceful men?
When it is fully considered, there is but one conclusion: When it comes to values and morals the right is engaged in one of the oldest cons known to mankind, telling people what they want to hear, rather then telling them the truth. They have no equal when it comes to talking the talk but they fall so very short when it's time to walk the walk.
Friday, January 07, 2005
God bless America
God bless America. A sentiment currently in vogue and seen on many, many automobiles and roadside billboards.
Does God bless the wanton killing of non-combatants and other civilians?
Does God bless the use of torture when questioning prisoners of any stripe?
Does God bless the practice of imprisoning people, for life, without trial or even indictments or other charges because one man deems them to be dangerous?
Does God bless the practice of continuous lies and deceit from our supposed leaders?
Does God bless the practice of visiting war and destruction upon a people who have not threatened, nor were capable of threatening, America?
I am certain that one could continue with many more examples of does God bless... but the salient question is this:
If the answer to even one of the questions is no, then "God bless America" is unlikely to come to pass. In fact one could envision how the Deity could well deign to punish a nation for claiming to be motivated by God yet showing in virtually every act that such a claim is false.
There was a time when one was proud to be an American but under the criminals, fascists and thugs of the Bush regime, that time has passed.
It will not be democrats or independents who will save America. It will fall to the decent, moderate republicans (yes they do exist) to fight for and win back their party from the fascists and budding brown shirts.
The future of America, as we have known it, hangs in the balance.
Does God bless the wanton killing of non-combatants and other civilians?
Does God bless the use of torture when questioning prisoners of any stripe?
Does God bless the practice of imprisoning people, for life, without trial or even indictments or other charges because one man deems them to be dangerous?
Does God bless the practice of continuous lies and deceit from our supposed leaders?
Does God bless the practice of visiting war and destruction upon a people who have not threatened, nor were capable of threatening, America?
I am certain that one could continue with many more examples of does God bless... but the salient question is this:
If the answer to even one of the questions is no, then "God bless America" is unlikely to come to pass. In fact one could envision how the Deity could well deign to punish a nation for claiming to be motivated by God yet showing in virtually every act that such a claim is false.
There was a time when one was proud to be an American but under the criminals, fascists and thugs of the Bush regime, that time has passed.
It will not be democrats or independents who will save America. It will fall to the decent, moderate republicans (yes they do exist) to fight for and win back their party from the fascists and budding brown shirts.
The future of America, as we have known it, hangs in the balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
