BS: The Republicans (US)

Subject: BS: The republicans
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 07:55 PM

They seem to have hit a new low. Over 100 years they have had to do something about health care and all thy have done is resist. Now they have even resorted to arguing about the shape of the friggin' table!
Makes me proud to be a liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: The reblicans
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 08:40 PM

Sounds like the Paris Peace Talks all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: The reblicans
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:58 PM

What they wanted.

What they got.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 05:47 PM

Last November, when Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) demanded that he identify the attorneys in the Justice Department (DOJ) who either represented Guantanamo Bay detainees or worked for groups who advocated for them. "This prior representation creates a conflict-of-interest problem for these individuals," argued Grassley. He, along with six other Republicans, followed up with a letter to Holder requesting that the Attorney General release the names of all DOJ political appointees who worked on behalf of detainees.

In February, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley's inquiries, saying in a letter that "only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees." Weich named two of the lawyers, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal and National Security Division Attorney Jennifer Daskal, whom Grassley had previously identified.

The right wing responded incredulously, labeling the lawyers "The Gitmo Nine" and questioning whether "past work for terrorist detainees has biased" them. "Just whose side are they on?" asked the far right Investors Business Daily in an editorial titled "Department of Jihad." On Monday, Keep America Safe, the right-wing organization set up by Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame to "make the case against President Barack Obama's moves to wrench America away from Bush era foreign policy," released an internet ad calling the yet-to-be identified lawyers "the al Qaeda 7." Keep America Safe spokesman Michael Goldfarb essentially accused them of treason, telling Politico that the lawyers had "propagandized on behalf of our enemies, engaging in a worldwide smear campaign against the CIA, the U.S. military and the United States itself while we are at war."

THE RETURN OF 'PURE McCARTHYISM': Cheney's ad questioning the loyalty of Justice Department lawyers has been met with swift push back from advocates of the rule of law. "It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters," retired Col. Morris Davis, who formerly served as the chief prosecutor of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, told the Washington Independent. "You don't hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial." "This is plainly unacceptable in the United States,"

Ken Gude, the Associate Director of the International Rights at the Center for American Progress, told Politico's Josh Gerstein. "Condemnation is not sufficient. This is pure McCarthyism." "It's not kind of like McCarthyism, it is exactly what Joe McCarthy did with his Communist witch hunts," Gude added in comments to TPMmuckraker. "Cheney accuses the Attorney General of the United States of being a supporter of al Qaeda and running the 'Department of Jihad.'" The American Prospect's Adam Serwer noted yesterday that the smear campaign also impugns the loyalty of members of the military who represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay. "The logical conclusion of their argument is that the military lawyers who act as defense counsel to detainees in the military commissions are also traitors and should be court-martialed," wrote Serwer. As Gerstein pointed out, "even the Bush/Cheney Administration didn't have much tolerance for public attacks on the loyalty of lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees." Gerstein noted that "in 2007, Defense Department detainee affairs chief Charles Stimson made similar comments, calling for a boycott of firms handling such cases, often pro bono. The Pentagon publicly distanced itself from Stimson's statements, which were condemned by a broad array of voices in the legal community. Stimson eventually apologized and resigned a short time later."

Bush administration veterans have also spoken out against the Keep America Safe attack. "While it's legitimate for the public to inquire about the past work of DOJ political appointees, we need to recognize that our judicial system cannot function without pro bono counsel, and it doesn't make a lawyer less patriotic just because he or she has represented a criminal or terrorist suspect," former U.S. attorney and homeland security adviser Kenneth Wainstein told the Washington Post.

THE RULE OF LAW IS 'THE AMERICAN WAY': Unmentioned by most of the conservatives impugning the patriotism of Holder's Justice Department is that the Supreme Court has sided with many of the lawyers they are seeking to smear. Katyal was the lawyer who won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case that struck down the Bush administration's military commissions system. Daskal signed her name to an amicus brief in the Boumediene v. Bush case arguing that Guantanamo detainees be accorded habeas corpus rights to challenge their convictions.

The Supreme Court sided with Daskal's position. Former Bush White House lawyer Reginald Brown told the Washington Post, "It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court." "These lawyers were advocating on behalf of our Constitution and our laws. The detention policies of the Bush administration were unconstitutional and illegal, and no higher a legal authority than the Supreme Court of the United States agreed," said Gude. "The disgusting logic of these attacks is that the Supreme Court is in league with al-Qaeda." As Col. Davis noted with his reference to John Adams, lawyers "zealously" defending the rights of the accused is "the American way." But adherence to the rule of law in the fight against terrorism is exactly what bothers the conservatives at Keep America Safe. Justifying the "al Qaeda 7" ad, Burlingame complained to CNSNews that "this is what you get when you have a country run by progressives, taking us back to the mindset of the 1990s in which civil liberties and the legal, due process protections for terrorists was their chief concern, their chief priority." As Lt. Col. David Frakt, who has represented detainees both in military and civilian courts, told Serwer, "The right is treating the lawyers who came up with the justification for torture as heroes, and the lawyers like Katyal who helped restore the rule of law as villains." "They've just got their heads screwed on backwards."

ANOTHER HYPOCRITICAL POLITICAL ATTACK: Yesterday, Fox News' Mike Levine revealed the identity of the seven other lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees before joining the government. The Justice Department confirmed the report, stating that "each of the nine people referenced in the letter filed legal briefs that are available by using something as simple as Google" and that their names were not initially revealed because the Department did not want to "participate in an attempt to drag people's names through the mud for political purposes."

Levine also pointed out that "the Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects," naming three Bush administration lawyers who worked in such a capacity. ABC News' Jake Tapper reported that "it does not appear that any of these conservatives and Republicans stated any objections to the Bush Justice Department's hiring" of those lawyers. This hypocrisy should come as no surprise. For a long time now, conservatives have attacked the Obama administration's national security policies over issues they stayed silent on during the Bush administration. For instance, conservatives have lambasted Obama over the fact that the would-be Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda rights, despite the fact that when President Bush was in charge, the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid "was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days."

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 05:52 PM

WOMEN'S RIGHTS -- UTAH LAWMAKERS PASS BILL TO CRIMINALIZE ILLEGAL ABORTION AND MISCARRIAGES: The Utah legislature passed a bill last week that defines illegal abortions and miscarriage as "criminal homicide," carrying penalties of "up to life in prison." The measure, not yet signed by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R), "goes further than any other state" in holding a woman "criminally liable" for trying to end a pregnancy through illegal means. Not only does the measure impose severe penalties for illegal abortion, but it also narrows the definition of legal abortion in an attempt "to further restrict abortion," according to the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Carl Wimmer (R).

Moreover, it "holds women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by 'reckless' behavior," allowing a district attorney to allege homicide merely by showing that "a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy."

Critics say that the standard is so subjective that a pregnant woman who "returns to a physically abusive partner," or drives "without wearing her seatbelt" could legitimately be convicted under the statute. Missy Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah, sums up the problems with the legislation: "This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder."

...(PROGRESSIVE REPORT)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM

Associated Press - March 4, 2010 2:55 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wants a new version of a bill passed by lawmakers that some fear could result in criminal homicide investigations of women who have miscarriages.

Herbert spokeswoman Angie Welling said Thursday Herbert wants to ensure there are no unintended consequences from the bill that would make abortions not performed by a doctor through a medical procedure illegal.

For example, Welling says the governor is worried a pregnant woman who has an accident while skiing could be charged with a crime.

She says Herbert has asked Rep. Carl Wimmer, the bill's sponsor, to pass a new version of the bill that excludes reckless behavior.

Wimmer opened a bill file Thursday that he says will address misperceptions about the bill and supplant one lawmakers have already passed.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:32 PM

Thanks, Amos, and Art, for posting the Utah info. I was gobsmacked and so disheartened when I read it yesterday. I was not surprised having worked in hospital with a lot of LDS pregnant women and having a cousin who felt no compunction about making his wife pregnant so many times, she went into congestive heart failure, after which he still impregnated her. She died shortly after their, I think it was, eleventh child was born. Nothing happens in Utah without the Church being involved. I am sure the religious extremists are ecstatic about this.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:31 PM

I've been wondering if our overwhelming Democratic majority has been part of the problem. With such overwhelming opposition, the Republicans have no hope of getting anything they want, so perhaps they've circled their wagons and simply refused to negotiate about anything.
Whatever the case, things aren't working very well in Congress right now, and it seems so strange since the Democrats still have such a majority. They'd better figure out some solution, or they will be a minority party again soon.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:33 PM

Here is an excerpt my friend in Texas sent to me. It is about what the religious extremists are doing. It's things like this that had better get stopped or it could lead to a civil war. There is more, with a billboard espousing their group HERE. And, if you can stand it, here is the Repent Amarillo website. For an in-depth article, part of which is quoted below, please click HERE. (Wasn't sure which thread to put this on and didn't want to start a new one. I figure it's related to this one since these kind of wingnuts have taken over the GOP.)

Quote:

Some very scary shit is going down in Texas. Scarier than usual. "Repent Amarillo" is a rabid group of religious nuts—homegrown religious extremists of the conservative Christian variety—and they're not just going after the gays.

    At first, the swinger community was mystified by the attention. On the 60-some hours of surveillance footage the Meads have, a swinger can be heard telling a Repent member that the swingers haven't done anything to bother them."You're going to hell, and it bothers me," Grisham responds. "What bothers me is you're going to hell."

    Perhaps the most insidious tactic Repent uses is trying to destroy the reputation of the swingers. In Amarillo, people can be ostracized over a whiff of impropriety. On one tape, Grisham directs followers to get the license-plate numbers in the Route 66 parking lot. "A new couple can be here three or four hours," says Mac. "Whenever they leave, the Repent Amarillo group will call them by first and last name, know where they live, know where they work, just within a very few hours."

    Randall Sammons says he was fired from his job of 13 years in August after his boss learned Sammons was a swinger from another employee, a Repent member. He believes he's now as good as blacklisted in Amarillo. "I'm screwed at finding a job," Sammons says. Russell Grisham, David's 20-year-old son who has a conviction on his record for hacking the computer system at his high school, has posted the names, photos and workplaces of swingers on the Internet, including one man whose wife works for a school district. ("Family-wise, it will kill both of us," the man says.) In at least two instances, Repent members called swingers' employers.

Having successfully harassed a local and very discreet group for heterosexual swingers out of existence, Repent Amarillo's "warriors" are now planning to go after...

    1. Gay pride events.
    2. Earth worship events such as "Earth Day"
    3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood
    4. Breast cancer events such as "Race for the Cure" to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer.
    5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students.
    6. Spring break events.
    7. Demonically based concerts.
    8. Halloween events.
    9. Other events that may arise that the ministry feels called to confront.

They're also going after churches they believe to be insufficiently Christian (Episcopalians, Christian Scientists, Unitarians), palm readers, people who practice witchcraft, and anything and everything that might create a "demonic stronghold" in Amarillo. And they're not just threatening to pray for people: Repent Amarillo's "actions" include prayer, according to Repent Amarillo's website, "but [also] may involve more aggressive use of soldiers and prayer warriors." Check out the group's locked-and-loaded website. (Please note: Repent Amarillo's website "is not designed for non-Christians," or the wrong kinds of Christians, so don't look long lest you defile the group's website with your eyes and turn into a pillar of salt.)
Hello? Moderate and liberal Christians? In Texas and elsewhere? Now might be a good time to speak the fuck up. Maybe you could spit out a few press releases, organize a massive, anti-Phelps-style counter-protest, and come to the defense of the people and churches and artists and businesses being menaced by your co-religionists. This calls for something above and beyond mewling in comments threads on liberal blogs about how "we're not all like that." Don't tell us, tell them.

End Quote

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM

Ok...got it. I was once offered a job in Texas. I probably would not have made it thru one year....

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:33 AM

I dunno, Kat. I think that any sort of organized opposition to the wacko Phelps organization, would just give them a semblance of legitimacy. I don't want to acknowledge that they live on the same planet, and I certainly don't want to give any implication that they fit the definition of "Christian." They're lunatics. Angry opposition and publicity is just what they want. Far better to organize quiet, peaceful, clever ways of making them look ridiculous.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:45 AM

Joe, I didn't write that, however I am not sure I agree with you. It would have been horrible if a bunch of folks hadn't been there to protest against phelps and his gang when we had Mathew Shepherd's funeral in Casper. It would have been unconscionable.

From what my friend says, there are plenty of people like the above group in Texas; towns even more conservative than Amarillo. I don't know how anyone could organize quiet, peaceful, clever ways of making them look ridiculous. THEY consider themselves to be Christian and so do those around them. Making them look inane would be a hard sell there, imo. We could do so from outside their bailiwick but I am not sure that would have much effect on them, directly.

I don't think we can remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:22 PM

When a group is so arrogant and dangerous as to put up maps of their enemies, it is very close to what happened to the abortion doctor in Wichita. Do we wait until a few of those demonic palm readers & 'witches' places have been fire bombed? It is clear to me that some of those people are fully capable of such things.

Let me be clear... THIS is why 'state's rights' is mostly a shield for hate laws & bullying of those who are 'different'.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:34 PM

I've often wondered about this, and really haven't come up with an answer that satisfies me: how DO we respond to hate groups?

For one thing I think we need to have strict discipline and completely rule out all violence, aggression, and hateful expression on our own side; and I think any demonstration we make must be peaceful, positive, and exemplary. Rather than attacking the hate group, I think we're better off promoting whatever they're attacking. If they're attacking a funeral, then we should line the streets with silent people showing respect for the deceased.

It's too easy to be dragged down to the level of hate groups like the Phelps organization, so it's important to use good judgment and a positive tone.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:21 PM

That is obviously the sane way to cope with it, Joe....but all thru history it has been easier to form groups which are 'against' something.

Quiet, peace loving folks are harder to stir up for a 'cause' until they feel directly and personally threatened. I don't know how the 5% of folks in Amarillo can go about defending against the 10% of active haters and 80%+ of 'Christians' who sympathize with the haters, but I don't envy them. Unfortunately in these situations, just calling for 'justice' and an end to persecution can get you lumped with those being persecuted and subjected to similar abuse.

To really be effective, counter-measures must have the support of the police & local government, and in some parts of Texas, that ain't easy!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM

Or you could do the sensible thing, and jail the bastards.

I can't believe that, after everything that has happened in the USA since the civil war, the lynch mob mentality is still rife, and worse than that, promoted almost exclusively by people who call themselves Christians.

N.B. I said "call themselves Christians", because nothing could be further from Christian than the attitudes they display. Time for some heavyweight response from the real Christians, along the lines of public excommunication.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:51 PM

I don't know how to characterize these groups, hate or extremists of one sort or another. Like Kat, some sort of reply seems required, but like Joe, I don't know how to go about it. To object effectively, the approach must be visible, involving media and money.


The title of this thread is offensive to me and I am sure to many others.
I object to tarring all Republicans with this brush; many sincere, caring people support conservative policies and are just as opposed to the extremists.

Similarly, I object to blaming all LDS members for the extreme position shown in the abortion bill passed by the Utah legislature; I know many would not agree with the bill.
--------------------------------------

Not mentioned specifically here is the Texas Board of Education, which controls content of many schoolbooks. The current chairman wants all of the founding fathers characterized as Christians, and wants Christian emphasis placed on the nature of the United States. He seems to envision Christianity as the state religion. This would place us in the position of some Islamic states and the state of Israel.

The decisions of the Texas Board are important, since their textbook purchases are large enough that publishers have tended to follow their wishes in several instances that have been publicized in the past (California is exempt from the Texas textbook threat; they have their own board and specify their textbooks but have not tended to extremism).

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Alice
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:48 PM

Conservatives, liberals and centrists who choose to discuss issues with civility and honesty are coming together in gatherings called the coffee party usa.

Pledge of civility:
As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.

Here is an interesting video from a conservative, independent, US veteran about the Tea Party and the Coffee Party:

VIDEO Alan P. Alborn of Manassas, Virginia

About the Coffee Party (non-partisan)
"We are diverse — ethnically, geographically, politically, in age and in experience.

We are 100% grassroots. No lobbyists here. No pundits. And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of civic engagement that is solution-oriented, not blame-oriented.

We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions.

We want a society in which democracy is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens participate out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to contribute to society. The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — Democracy — and we must use it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation."

The website to join is here:

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

There is also a facebook group at the above link.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:51 PM

Good point about the textbooks.

I did not blame ALL LDS members. I have relatives who are LDS and do not agree with it. As I said, though, it is no surprise to me that it came about in Utah and that nothing important happens there without the Church's sanction.

Joe, somewhere on here I wrote about that day in Casper. The pro-Mathew people were quiet and respectful. They did carry signs, some of them, which counter the hate-filled ones his people had and were screaming about. The really neat things were the cops kept phelps and co. behind a barrier in a small space AND, out of a clear blue sky, dark, somber clouds amassed very quickly and let down a silent, noise-dampening, gentle snow which shut phelps and co. up immediately. They left. Mother Nature really helped out and it was a most unusual snow for WY with no wind.

When I was PR person for the Natrona County Grassroots Project, a human rights org. and working with the WY Grassroots Project, we had a monthly seminar, speaker, movie, etc. which we invited the public to, free of charge. We always made it a point to reach out to those who we knew were anit-gay, abortion, etc. any of the human rights issues we were working on, most of them not all that popular in WY. I think we made an impact. We certainly got a lot of press when there was a hate crime and we offered help to those who were targeted. We wrote letters, articles, attended school board mtgs., etc. in support of them.

One of the women who trained us was a lesbian who travelled around the northwest teaching non-violent skills to people like us. She had been to meetings in Montana where big, intimidating men would come stand in the back of the facility with their arms crossed and their guns strapped on, visibly a threatening stance. She was a very courageous young woman.

I'll tell you the most significant and effective response I've heard about as far as communities goes and it happened in Billings, Montana. You may remember my writing about it:Not In Our Town how it all started.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:55 PM

Forgot to say, Q, I also didn't say ALL Republicans are like the extremists, BUT the ones you speak of had better get some kind of coalition going to counteract them because right now the GOP IS the extremists. I heard, on NPR today, of a woman running for Congress who said she "has Sarah Palin values!" THAT is scary!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM

While it seems a bit blown out of proportion - for the wrong reasons - a recent flap perhaps gives some clues about where the party stands. You do need to read the text (and I have only found parts of it) and ignore the pictures (which appear to be selling quite well).

GOP taking cues from Tea Party?

Secret memo depicts Obama as Joker, Dems as 'Evil Empire'
BY Neil Nagraj DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, March 4th 2010, 12:01 PM via the Washington Post

Included in the presentation was the above slide¹, which was published on the Web site of the Washington Post. The Republican Party's battle plan for victory this fall may be steeped in the Tea Party movement's aesthetics.

A secret GOP fundraising document urges the party to fill its coffers by playing on donors' "fear" of Barack Obama and a pledge to "save the country from trending towards socialism," Politico.com reports, complete with an image depicting Barack Obama as the Joker.

The strategy was presented by the RNC's Finance Director, Rob Bickhart, and Finance Chairman, Peter Terpelk, to fundraisers at a GOP retreat in Florida, the Web site reports.

Included in the Power Point presentation is a slide titled 'The Evil Empire' depicting Sen. Harry Reid as Scooby Doo and Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille, along with the Joker caricature of Obama.

Politico reports the document also appears to heap scorn on the very hands feeding the GOP, with slides accusing the party's donors of being "reactionary," "ego-driven," and driven by "peer pressure."

A Democrat gave the 72-page-document to Politico, saying it had been left behind at Boca Grande's Gasparilla Inn & Club, the site of the retreat.

The RNC "reacted with alarm to a question about it," Politico reports, and quickly began emailing donors in an attempt at damage control.

A spokesman for the party hastily tried to distance the party's embattled chairman, Michael Steele, from what he called an " unacceptable" depiction of President Obama. Steele was reportedly not at the event.

[end quotes from that article]

¹ You'll have to click the link to see the picture.

Although the spokesman makes reference to the "unacceptable" depiction of President Obama, it would seem that what really horrified the core of the party was the content of the slide show that depicted small donors in what must be mildly described as "unflattering terms." (albeit perhaps accurately?)

For those using short-range electrons for their web browsing, a very similar article appears at:

Republicans embarrassed by 'evil empire' Obama smear

Posted by Richard Adams
Thursday 4 March 2010 17.40 GMT
guardian.co.uk

The document also contained a wealth of embarrassing details about Republican fundraising tactics. Politico reported: "The small donors² who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading 'Visceral Giving.' Their motivations are listed as 'fear;' 'Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;' and 'Reactionary.'"

The document also mentions the $80,000 (£53,000) price tag for donors wanting to join an official RNC visit to meet British Conservative party leader David Cameron in September – after the UK general election, when Republicans hope he will be Britain's prime minister.

[end quotes]

² Was the minimum ticket price for admission to the latest tea party set at $500 per seat to avoid having "small donors" hear about what the party thinks of them?

It would be interesting to find the whole 72 pages of the pitch, although since it was a Power Point presentation it's unlikely to have included any "intelligence." Even the US Pentagon at least briefly banned Power Point as "incapable of providing any useful information" a few years back. (Since the military has its own definitions of "intelligence" it may have crept back in, of course.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM

Q said: The title of this thread is offensive to me and I am sure to many others.
I object to tarring all Republicans with this brush; many sincere, caring people support conservative policies and are just as opposed to the extremists.

When Kendall started this thread, I think he meant to talk about mainstream Republicans and their unified opposition to everything. The discussion drifted into right-wing extremist groups that espouse racism and such. I don't think we'd accuse the mainstream of the Republicans of THAT, but it does seem that their sole purpose nowadays is to win the next two elections and do away with the Democratic majority. The Republicans seem to have no interest in running the country when the Democrats are in power - all they want to do is stymie the Democrats and get themselves elected.

Even Republicans I respected like John McCain and Olympia Snowe, are afraid to buck party unity, and it has almost brought our country to a standstill.

Isn't there a better way to run a country?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: John P
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 06:42 PM

I'd like to know how they get every single Republican in Congress to go along with the idiotic obstructionism. Who decides what the party line is, and what do they threaten their members with? I find it hard to believe that so many congresspeople all think exactly the same, and are all equally willing to stop the wheels of government.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:39 PM

This is simple math here... The Repubs are not at all concerned about low approval ratings for Congress... They want those ratings to hit "zero"... That will bring about a "throw-the-bums-out" vote in NOvemeber and that will put more Dems in harms way than Repubs... That is their strategy... Period!!!

Thanks, Alice, for mentioning the "Coffee Party"... This might blunt some of the uncivil behavior that out government and society seems to condone by very rude and borish people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM

I remember when Newt Gingrich brought the government to a standstill because he had to leave Clinton's airplane through the rear door and not the front. Anybody remember that? Looks like obstructing government has been in the Republicans' toolkit for some time. Shameful.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:26 PM

many sincere, caring people support conservative policies and are just as opposed to the extremists.

Then they should get off their asses and say so & DO something about the extremist assholes, no?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:47 PM

My dad was a staunch Republican, staunch as in he voted for Nixon more than once.
He was also my first history teacher. One of my lessons was on the Scopes trial. In dad's version the heroes of that story were Scopes and Darrow. Dad used to watch The 700 Club and laugh at people who thought that way in the 20th century.

This isn't my parents' Republican party.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM

From the Progress Report:

The Real Consequences of Obstruction


For the past year, Republicans have embarked on an aggressive obstructionist agenda, determined to block any progress the Democratic majority may try make on health care, jobs, or even approving presidential nominees essential to keep the government running. This week, the country saw the real-life effects of this partisan game. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) became a "poster child" for GOP obstruction and demonstrated the outsized influence a determined minority can exert over policies affecting the entire country. Although he's not the first obstructionist, he likely won't be the last. Most recently, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) put a blanket hold on President Obama's nominees in order to secure pork funding for his state. Although he eventually relented on most of the nominees, he continues to block several military officials. Since last week, Bunning had been blocking legislation that would offer a 30-day extension on unemployment and COBRA health benefits, which expired on Sunday for millions of Americans, over objections about how the bill would be funded. Although the blockade was primarily Bunning's work, he was aided by a party that either stayed silent or even cheered on his obstruction. Even when Bunning finally relented last night and allowed a vote to go forward on the legislation, 18 Republican senators joined with him to vote against the temporary extension of benefits. Although the suffering of millions of Americans has now been eased, their well-being will continue to be subject to the whims of dysfunctional obstruction if lawmakers continue to put their partisan interests over the best interests of their constituents.Ê

OBSTRUCTION FOR OBSTRUCTION'S SAKE:

The callousness of obstruction was best demonstrated on Thursday, when Bunning became incensed at repeated Democratic attempts to pass the unemployment benefits extension -- because they made him miss a college basketball game. At one point, while Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) were asking him to relent, Bunning blurted out "tough sh*t" from the back row of the chamber. Additionally, it's not clear why Bunning waited until the last minute to insist on certain funding mechanisms for the legislation. It was widely known that these unemployment benefits were set to expire and a temporary extension would be coming up for a vote; Bunning could have raised his concerns earlier -- in a way that wouldn't have held Americans hostage. Yesterday on the Senate floor, Bunning simply said, "The question I've been asked mostly is 'why now?' Well, why not now? What better time for it than to stand up when the Majority Leader has the ability to do exactly on this bill what he has done on 25 bills in the last five months?" Democrats countered that the temporary extension qualified as emergency spending, and was therefore not subject to pay-as-you-go rules. Of course, Bunning's rhetoric on fiscal discipline rings hollow, since he and his fellow Republicans all recently voted against such a measure, which requires "new spending measures be offset in the budget by other funds." Additionally, an investigation by The Progress Report found thatÊin 2003, Bunning not only voted for an unpaid-for unemployment benefits extension, but he also put out a glowing press release lauding the measure as "hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky."

GOP AIDING AND ABETTING:

Only two Republican senators -- James Inhofe (OK) and Susan Collins (ME) -- publicly condemned what Bunning was doing. Others stayed silent or sided with obstruction, in line with what Republicans have consistently been advocating. Yesterday on the Senate floor, Collins asked for unanimous consent for the Senate to proceed on the unemployment benefits legislation, saying that she was speaking on behalf of "numerous members of the Republican caucus." However, it's unclear who those senators were, since they were too cowardly to speak up themselves and join Collins' criticism that Bunning was "hurting the American people." Collins reportedly had the "blessing" of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but he avoided the topic. Even though he spoke after Collins on the Senate floor, he refused to follow her lead and discuss Bunning, instead launching into "a speech criticizing Democrats on health care legislation." When reporters pressed McConnell yesterday on whether Bunning was "speaking for the Republicans," McConnell repeatedly tried to dodge the question, finally giving up and asking, "Are there any questions on any other subject?" Other members of the GOP were outspoken in their full-throated endorsement of Bunning's obstruction. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told reporters that Bunning's block was "not as big of a deal as some of you are trying to make it." On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said of Bunning, "I respect him for the courage he's showed." Similarly, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has said that Bunning's move is something that the Senate should "honor," and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has said that he "admire[s]" the obstruction. Yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) even put up a blog post praising Bunning, saying he was "stand[ing] up for taxpayers." Perhaps realizing that significant political backlash Republicans may receive from this stunt, Cornyn was backing down yesterday,Êinsisting that Bunning was just "one senator. This does not represent the position of the caucus." Nevertheless, he joined Bunning and voted against final passage of the unemployment benefits extension.

ACTUAL EFFECTS:

Obstruction has real consequences, and this point was hammered home by Bunning's extreme stunt. On Monday, 2,000 federal transportation workers were furloughed without pay, since the legislation being blocked also contained transportation funding. The Department of Transportation had to halt "critical construction projects," and "safety programs that operate in partnership with the states and advocacy groups" -- such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- were disrupted. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pointed out that as many as 1.5 million people would be "unable to watch local TV stations," since the bill included a "satellite television extension" allowing rural residents to watch local TV stations via satellite. According to MultiChannel news, without the extension, "satellite operators will not be allowed to import distant affiliate TV station signals to viewers who cannot receive a viewable version of their local affiliate." Doctors faced a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments, and small businesses and flood insurance were also affected. Stories in local newspapers around the country added up the toll, withÊ54,300 New Yorkers, 27,400 Texans, more than 23,000 South Carolinians, and 4,300 Kentuckians, for example,Êput at risk because of the GOP obstruction. As Durbin said yesterday, "Sometimes just because we have the power to do things, we ought to think twice before we use that power."
Ê

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:24 AM

I live in one of the most conservative counties in California, perhaps in the nation. I constantly have to watch what I say, or else I'll lose the platforms I have found to speak from. We do have a few moderate Republicans in local and county government, and several have been edged out of their party, accused of being RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Same thing is happening in the government of the State of California. Republicans who vote in favor of any taxes, or in favor of any Democratic-sponsored legislation, are ostracized and denied campaign support. The local parties are sponsoring conservative candidates to run against incumbents that have been labeled RINOs.
It's a nasty thing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

Let me put a bit of a different perspective on this.

IF we had a multi-party system like, for example, Israel, it would be easier for people with widely divergent viewpoints to sort themselves out.

These days, particularly with incessant media coverage exaggerating things, we have a number of issues which polarize people...environmental claims, abortion, gun control, 'globalization', immigration... add your own to the list.

Now, when conservative extremists on any issue need a platform and want to elect legislators who reflect their views, they 'sometimes' try to form a party, but usually it is easier to just use a ready-made entity and co-opt it for their own purposes.. (kinda like 'folk' being handy for shoving all sorts of music into).
It is obvious that those flaky Democrats won't be very receptive...*grin*....so they congregate in the Republican party and often scare/convince/intimidate 'moderate' Republicans to agree on a number of issues. Then, when the far right needs a candidate who will further their agenda, they make it clear that, in order to get even basic Republican views supported, the whole party must adapt and adopt more extreme views than it might (and than it did 30, 40, 50 years ago) otherwise.

There are mindsets...(and we can argue forever where they come from)... that seek 'power for its own sake', and which have narrow, intolerant views of ideas other than their own, and which have few compunctions about methods (including lies and inconsistent logic) to get what they want...like Machiavelli explained long ago.
   Sometimes there are even deviant personalities (Hitler is the 'common' recent example) who combine hate with a certain cleverness and move entire nations into paths of destruction..... and the party they choose, when they can't easily create one, is the most 'conservative' party they can find. ((Where do you think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would have landed if they had been born in Europe in the early 20th century?!!))

So...it is not exactly being 'Republican' that is the problem and that prompted the concerns that started this thread, but the way in which 'Republicianism' has been corrupted and co-opted by those with no scruples about how to push special interest agendas.

This is perhaps an over-simplified analysis...but it IS clear that this is NOT the Republican party *I* had friendly, meaningful dialogue with 40-50 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:07 PM

Obstructionism has been part of the U. S. system of government since the beginning.
The Republican Party smells blood and will not 'conciliate' with the Democrats.
The Fall congressional elections will see the defeat of many Democrats.

Israel is hardly a model for democracy with limited participation allowed for the oppressed Muslim minority.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:18 PM

I hope you didn't think *I* was suggesting Israel was a 'model' for anything... it was just my example of a state where folks had many parties to choose from in order to act as a bloc for certain purposes.

Here in the US, almost any minority party with any clout just steals votes FROM whoever is nearest...in Israel, they form temporary alliances.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM

Late last year, the House of Representatives passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, a regulatory reform package aimed at protecting consumers and taxpayers from Wall Street excess, but the Senate has yet to approve its own regulatory reform bill. Last month, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT), who is leading the Senate negotiations, reached an "impasse" with the committee's ranking member, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL).ÊSen. Bob Corker (R-TN) restarted negotiations, saying that regulatory reform is "too important to fail," and last week, Corker said that a deal with Dodd was "real close."

The main sticking point that remains in the process is whether or not to create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) like the one included in the House bill. While Dodd's initial bill included a CFPA, Corker has called a new agency a "non-starter" and Shelby has characterized it as "folly and dangerous." The banking industry has also been lobbying heavily against the CFPA, claiming that it will drive up the cost of credit. So instead, Dodd is reportedly looking to create a consumer protection division inside of another bank regulator. The Senate has also not moved on an Obama administration proposal to prevent banks from trading with federally insured money.

COMPROMISED CONSUMERS: The goal behind creating an independent CFPA is to ensure that there is a body within the regulatory structure focused solely on consumer protection -- as the rest of the bank regulators make bank "safety and soundness" their primary concern -- and to crack down on the pernicious lending practices that helped precipitate the financial crisis. Dodd's initial compromise proposal, which the Republicans rejected, placed a new consumer division inside the Treasury Department. Instead, Corker proposed placing it insideÊthe Federal Reserve. That proposal, and Dodd's willingness to examine it, represent quite a turnaround from the previous few months, when the Fed was the subject of heavy criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Dodd himself has said that the Fed was "an abysmal failure" at consumer protection, "which failed for over 14 years to put an end to the predatory mortgage lending practices that led to the financial crisis." The "Fed option" has been met with skepticism from Democrats on the banking committee and consumer advocates. "In my 20 years of trying to get the Federal Reserve to properly protect consumers, it has been an uphill, and very often unsuccessful, battle. I am very leery of any consumer regulator being placed inside the Fed," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). "Why put consumer protection back in the Fed after it's been so woefully neglected?" asked Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), meanwhile, called the proposal "a joke," and said that he wouldn't bring the Senate bill to a vote if the "Fed option" remained.

REPUBLICAN VETO POINTS: As Demos' Heather McGhee said, leaving consumer protection responsibilities with the Fed "would codify consumer protection's secondary status in federal financial regulation." And, in fact, the banking industry considered the proposal a "victory" that "alleviates their concern." "Regulation of the products should be connected to the regulation of the bank," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government relations for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents the country's largest financial firms. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) wants to go even further, saying that he would only agree to support regulatory reform if the Federal Reserve Chairman was given veto power over the consumer division's rule-writing. Shelby supports Gregg, even though he had previously said that the Fed's "poor oversight of our financial institutions and markets helped produce the greatest economic crisis this country has experienced in eighty years." Dodd, however, has said that the consumer division must have rule-writing authority and an independent source of funding, both of which are indeedÊcritical if the agency is to beÊeffective. "Consumer abuses were one of the root causes of the financial crisis and regulatory reform legislation should address this problem," said Andrew Gray, a spokesman for FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. "[T]he ideal way to do this is through an independent agency with the power to write rules for the banks and non-banks alike."

VOLCKER ON THE SHELF?: While the CFPA has been contentious, both parties seem united in wanting to shelve a proposal by the administration aimed at reining in banks' risky trading. The administration's "Volcker rule" would bar banks from trading for their own benefits with federally insured dollars and mandate that no bank hold more than ten percent of the liabilities in the financial system. However, Dodd dismissed the idea, saying that "I can't write regulations," and Corker said the proposal is "just not helpful." Outside of the Senate, meanwhile, the proposal has garnered significant praise. Five former Treasury secretaries said that it is "a key element in protecting our financial system and will assure that banks will give priority to their essential lending and depository responsibilities." Former Citigroup CEO John Reed added that it would "limit the propagation of [bank] failures." The rule also gained the backing of one currentÊbank CEO last week, with Citgroup's Vikram Pandit saying that "banks should operate as banks, focused completely on serving their clients." "I donÕt believe banks should use capital to speculate that way," Pandit said, when asked about the kind of trading the Volcker rule is meant to curb. Last week, Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher advocated a more radical approach to the banks, saying that financial firms considered "too big to fail" should be broken up "into ones of more manageable size." "Given the danger these institutions pose to spreading debilitating viruses throughout the financial world, my preference is for a more prophylactic approach," he said. "And this should be done before the next financial crisis, because it surely cannot be done in the middle of a crisis."

(The Progressive Report)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:11 AM

Q,

"This would place us in the position of some Islamic states and the state of Israel."

AND Great Britain, most if not all of South America, and many nations of Europe. Look at what you are saying- MOST nations have a state religion- SOME have restrictions on other religions ( many in the Middle East) but most have religious TOLERANCE even with the state religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:23 AM

Re: Olympia Snowe:

She suggested a "trigger" for health care reform.   For her trouble, she was called a traitor by some in her party. And her idea was rejected by the Democrats--especially liberals.

Even Scott Brown's honeymoon is now over---in record time.   Since his own true believers consider him a traitor for supporting the recent jobs bill.

There's not much incentive, it seems, for Republicans to work with Democrats on anything.

There are "true believers" all over the political spectrum. And they brook no compromise.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:30 AM

Moderates--even on Mudcat--seem to be an endangered species.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.... 'Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right.' That's what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner...On each banner, read the words, here in America: 'social justice.'"
-- Glenn Beck

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:59 AM

Dear Jesus, why does anyone with pretensions to basic intelligence listen to this moron? And how did a high school dropout get a job as commentator on things he doesn't begin to comprehend?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:42 AM

"...how did a high school dropout get a job as commentator on things he doesn't begin to comprehend?"

They know their audience....

(as long as the polls show a certain % watching, Faux News would put an autistic baboon on.)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM

"Your Papers, Please!" - Get Your Fingerprints Ready! Cross-Party
Senate Alliance Pushing National ID Card

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000687.html


Greetings. According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Senate
immigration reform advocates Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham are
proposing a mandatory biometric (e.g. fingerprint-based) National ID
Card system, and are attempting to brush away privacy concerns as
trivial and irrelevant ( http://bit.ly/au3xGq ).

Touted as "merely" a "right-to-work" card aimed at addressing illegal
immigration concerns, there's simply no fast-talking around the fact
that this plan will set in motion a massive national ID infrastructure
that will ultimately penetrate every aspect of our lives. Anyone who
suggests otherwise is -- sorry to say -- either a liar or a fool.

I basically care not one whit what other countries have done in this
regard. When it comes to civil liberties, each nation is in the end
responsible for their own nirvanas -- or hells. So apparently we'll
need to save ourselves from the seemingly well-meaning but clearly
bullheaded and misguided efforts of these two usually relatively
sensible Senators.

Frankly, I can't think of many more effective ways to trigger an
outpouring of civil disobedience among otherwise law-abiding and
patriotic Americans than trying to stuff biometric ID cards up our
you-know-whats (where the new airport full-body scanners won't be able
to see them, by the way).

"Your papers, please! NOW Comrade!"

(Note that while Lindsey Graham from S. Carolina is indeed a Republican, Chuck Schumer is registered as a Democrat)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:29 PM

"South Carolina has given the United States two things: The Civil War, and Lindsey Graham. I'm not sure which is worse".

Not mine, but I can't recall the correct attribution.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM

Al-Qaeda 7' smear campaign is an assault on American values

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The word "McCarthyism" is overused, but in this case it's mild. Liz Cheney, the former vice president's ambitious daughter, has in her hand a list of Justice Department lawyers whose "values" she has the gall to question. She ought to spend the time examining her own principles, if she can find them.

A group that Liz Cheney co-chairs, called Keep America Safe, has spent the past two weeks scurrilously attacking the Justice Department officials because they "represented or advocated for terrorist detainees" before joining the administration. In other words, they did what lawyers are supposed to do in this country: ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have adequate legal representation and that the government obeys the law.

Liz Cheney is not ignorant, and neither are the other co-chairs of her group, advocate Debra Burlingame and pundit William Kristol, who writes a monthly column for The Post. Presumably they know that "the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre" -- in other words, older than the nation itself.

That quote is from a letter by a group of conservative lawyers -- including several former high-ranking officials of the Bush-Cheney administration, legal scholars who have supported draconian detention and interrogation policies, and even Kenneth W. Starr -- that blasts the "shameful series of attacks" in which Liz Cheney has been the principal mouthpiece. Among the signers are Larry Thompson, who was deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft; Peter Keisler, who was acting attorney general for a time during George W. Bush's second term; and Bradford Berenson, who was an associate White House counsel during Bush's first term.



"To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions," the letter states.

But maligning is apparently the whole point of the exercise. The smear campaign by Cheney, et al., has nothing to do with keeping America safe. It can only be an attempt to inflict political damage on the Obama administration by portraying the Justice Department as somehow "soft" on terrorism. Even by Washington's low standards, this is unbelievably dishonest and dishonorable.

"Whose values do they share?" a video on the group's Web site ominously asks. The answer is obvious: the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The most prominent of the nine Justice officials, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, represented Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, in a case that went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-3 decision, the court sided with Hamdan and ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals were unconstitutional. Are Liz Cheney and her pals angry that Katyal was right? Or do they also question the "values" and patriotism of the five justices who voted with the majority?

The letter from the conservative lawyers points out that "in terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role." It notes that whether terrorism suspects are tried in civilian or military courts, they will have access to counsel -- and that Guantanamo inmates, even if they do not face formal charges, have a right to habeas corpus review of their detention. It is the federal courts -- not defense lawyers -- that have made all of this crystal clear. If Cheney and her group object, they should prepare a blanket denunciation of the federal judiciary. Or maybe what they really don't like is that pesky old Constitution, with all its checks, balances and guarantees of due process. How inconvenient to live in a country that respects the rule of law.

But there I go again, taking the whole thing seriously. This is really part of a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy to wound President Obama politically. The charge of softness on terrorism -- or terrorist suspects -- is absurd; Obama has brought far more resources and focus to the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan than the Bush-Cheney administration cared to summon. Since Obama's opponents can't attack him on substance, they resort to atmospherics. They distort. They insinuate. They sully. They blow smoke.

This time, obviously, they went too far. But the next Big Lie is probably already in the works. Scorched-earth groups like Keep America Safe may just be pretending not to understand our most firmly established and cherished legal principles, but there is one thing they genuinely don't grasp: the concept of shame...." (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 12:23 AM

"Your Papers, Please!" - Get Your Fingerprints Ready! Cross-Party
Senate Alliance Pushing National ID Card

Dear God just when you thought the Patriot Act couldn't get any worse.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:26 AM

"When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
      
       -Abraham Lincoln
         24 August 1855

Republicans: The Party of Lincoln? Puh -leeze!!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:34 PM

"Rush says he'll leave the US if health care passes -- but every other developed country on the planet already has universal health care. The only places he could go to find very small government and everything privatized are places like Somalia and Afghanistan. And if he talked in those places the way he does here, they'd cut out his tongue." (My sister)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:20 AM

"Rush says he'll leave the US if health care passes."    Well, what other incentive could anybody want to pass it--even if there were no other benefit?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:18 AM

Now, if we could only get Rush to take the rest of the BuShite talking head morons WITH him...........

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:39 AM

And then the Democraps can print up money to pay for it all...

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:21 PM

Hey, Brucie: Lets review reality:

1. When Bush took office in 2001, he was handed a $236 billion budget surplus.

2.When he LEFT office, he handed the Obama admin a $1.3 trillion defecit, PLUS projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade.

3. The Bush admin added more debt in its eight years than ALL THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE U.S. COMBINED.

4. And in so doing, created the economic cesspool that the country now finds itself in.

So stop whining about the Dems.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:35 PM

3. The Bush admin added more debt in its eight years than ALL THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE U.S. COMBINED.

UNTIL THIS ONE- The projected debt from this last year is greater than what Bush left-


SO STOP WHINING about Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 04:53 PM

wELL, If you're gonna get all huffy let's compare. Bush's deficit was largely expended on invading two foreign countries and doing so in the most expensive and least efficient way possible.

Obama's was spent on rescuing the country from the chaos of Bush's leavings and restoring some hope and sanity to the nation's economic engines.

Hmmmm. Seems about 180 out, to me...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM

echoing Amos...
It very often DOES cost more to undo a mess than to make one in the first place. Now we have not only two wars to try to find a way out of, but the other economic mess brought on by Republican deregulation of banks and Wall Street!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM

I feel amazed that anyone, esp. seemingly intelligent people, still defend the GOP, esp. the shrub and what he did.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:56 PM

I'm not amazed... they paint themselves into a corner by defining anything Democrats do as misguided and dangerous......then they (the Republicans) have to defend all the total nonsense with bad reasoning and selective memories.

Sometimes it's not exactly 'defending', but just obfuscating and ignoring and distracting with accusatory finger pointing about irrelevant topics. "Never mind Bush... look, the Democrats are trying to sneakily promote abortion!" ...or a dozen other things.

This is called 'make enough noise and tell enough falsehoods and plant enough false rumors that your opponents are lured into spending most of their time responding to crap!'.

It is highly effective.....

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:10 PM

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican (hated Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), but I find this site interesting.

Says, "Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we've worked to pass every one of our nation's Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight." And then it offers a timeline that shows some interesting things.

Didn't know if anyone here had seen it.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:07 PM

"I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican.."

But you post like a conservative on nearly everything

You care to tell us what you LIKE?

and that site...http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/...repeats the crap about Lincoln being a **Republican**, ignoring the 180° turn the parties have done in 120 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:31 PM

Lets keep on thing in perspective when it comes to debt... First of all, the '09 deficits were all on Bush... It was his budget... The incoming administartion is not involved in that budget...

Second, the way alot of Bush's spending bills were written were going to guaarnetee that no matter who had been elcted they were going to get stuck with a lot of Bush's "back-end" debt... In ohter words, Bush kinda boobie-trapped the next president...

Third, Bush left such a mess in terms of stability of the economy that the private sector wasn't going to spend to maintain it which meant that the governemnt was going to have to do it...

Bottom line??? Bush set the next presdient up to take the weight for his own failings...

This ain't about dems and repubs... This is all about Bush's folk's failings...

Now, yeah... There will come a time when this is all on the Obama administartion but given the hand he was delt I would think that he get's more than a 1 year pass before having to face the wolves... It took 30 years to fuck up the economy as badly as the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush administration have done and it ain't gonna get fixed over night...

Might of fact, it's gonna take a couple terms to get this thing fixed, if it can be fixed... And that is another question... With Congress so messed up in parlimentary trickery and infighting, it may not be fixable... I mean, we may be the next Greece... Or worse, Haiti...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:50 PM

Bill D. --

I don't even think of liberal/conservative. There's individualism and collectivism.

But I'm confused. Wasn't Lincoln a Republican? Are you saying the Dems and Reps have reversed positions over the years? On things like race?

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:22 PM

The Dems took a big U-Turn in the 60s when Lyndon Johnson pushed thru the Civil Rights Act... Johnson candidly said that it was going to change the Democratic Party forever and set it back decades... He was right... That took balls... I mean, folks voted for something that was totally foriegn to the way they were broguth up thinking... Ya' gotta give the Dems of the 60's alot of credit for the courage to pass a bill that meant that their party would suffer for decades to come... And when we look around, the Dems are still paying the price for that vote...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:31 PM

I still don't understand. A U-turn? So, today's Democrats used to be Republicans, right? Back in Lincoln's time, he was a Republican, but the stances of that party are now represented by the Democrats? Is that what I'm reading? If Lincoln were alive today he'd be a Democrat?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

Yes... "...today's Democrats used to be Republicans, right? Back in Lincoln's time, he was a Republican, but the stances of that party are now represented by the Democrats? Is that what I'm reading? If Lincoln were alive today he'd be a Democrat."!!

It's not exactly a one-to-one flip by doing a "hey, I know what! Let's change names!" but the essential position of the parties as 'liberal' and 'conservative' has reversed. Lincoln ran against Stephen Douglas, who was a defender of the Dred Scott slavery act. The issues were aligned differently back then, but Lincoln better represented the values that 'Democrats' would espouse later. Some of the reversal was actually begun with Lincoln's election.
There were awkward periods when Southern Democrats..(Dixiecrats).. fought civil rights in the 50s & 60s, but they did it as 'southerners', and when Kennedy & Johnson pushed thru school desegragation, the shift was largely completed....except for the usual 'conservative' element who felt they needed the democratic label... but the conservative voting pattern... to get elected. And we still see a lot of that today.

It's not a simplistic division...but it is not fair to simply say "Lincoln was a Republican" and assert that proves 'Republicans' did a lot for civil rights.... "liberals" did a lot for civil rights, no matter what label/name was being used.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:20 PM

"Because we never face up to how much we need government to do, there is a pathetic quality to our discussion of big deficits.

THIS STORY
Smart debt, dumb debt
It's not our debt that's unsustainable, it's our politics
Ryan's lonely challenge
View All Items in This Story
It's a debate also characterized by a politically convenient amnesia. Just a decade ago, we were running surpluses so big that Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, worried about what would happen once our national debt was liquidated. We had this problem well in hand until we started waging wars and cutting taxes at the same time.

What would a rational approach to the budget look like? It would begin by accepting that running deficits at a time of high unemployment is a good thing. We would celebrate the fact that the world's governments were far wiser in this downturn than their counterparts were during the Great Depression.

It is a hugely underrated achievement of international cooperation that the world's 20 leading economic powers pumped trillions of dollars into the global economy to prevent collapse. Catastrophe was averted, and growth, although sluggish, has resumed.

True, unemployment in our country is still too high. But the lesson here is not that President Obama's economic stimulus failed but that it was too small to do all that was needed. Those who would repeal stimulus spending -- the bright idea of the House Republican Study Committee -- would take us backward.



Yet no one should doubt that we must put our long-term fiscal house in order. The discussion should not be confined to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We need to ask a basic question: What do we want government to do, and, yes, how much will taxes have to go up so we can pay our bills?

Like it or not, government must grow in the coming decades because the private economy will not offer the same security it once did through employer-provided health and pension plans.

On health care, the status quo means that more Americans will find themselves without insurance because an ever-growing number of employers simply won't be able to afford the expense. This is unsustainable. Enacting health reform now will allow us to plan how government can take on these costs gradually.
..." (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:26 PM

Here's a better analysis & history of the Democratic party, showing how the political system was in flux for many years. It may be a lot to absorb and would take a LOT of reading to flesh out, but it does show that simple labels don't cover everything.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 06:18 PM

Best bumper I've seen in a long while has a portrait of Abe Lincoln and the text "Its my party - and I'll cry if I want to".

Which about sums up the difference between the 1860's and the 21st century.

If Lincoln had to witness what has become of the principles of the party he helped found and the current shenanigans these fools are perpetrating, he'd puke.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:03 PM

Lincoln better represented the values that 'Democrats' would espouse later.

Okay. This is a good illustration of why I'm having trouble with the label making.

Lincoln was no saint. Especially on racial issues.

In his debate with Steven Douglas in 1858 he said, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Lincoln was also a proponent of resettlement--returning American blacks to Africa. In 1860 he said, "In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, 'It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably..."

And then there's the Corwin Amendment. It was on track to become the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it said, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, states that wanted to could keep slavery. Lincoln mentioned the proposed amendment in his first inaugural address in 1861. He said that he had "no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." So Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue, if that would have averted the Civil War.

And then later, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it didn't free all slaves. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and parts of other slave states were exempted--he allowed slavery to continue there.

Finally, in 1865, shortly before his death, Lincoln met with Gen. Benjamin F Butler, who said that Lincoln talked to him about "exporting" blacks, using the U.S. navy, to export them to some "fertile" place.

Lincoln was a Republican, but now the Democrats want to claim him as one of their own. I don't see where having Lincoln on your side isn't a plus.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 12:51 AM

Maybe you should review his EMancipation Proclamation?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 11:25 AM

Lincoln was also a proponent of resettlement--returning American blacks to Africa

So was Marcus Garvey.

In his debate with Steven Douglas in 1858 he said...

Actually, there were a SERIES of debates- instead of cherry-picking a single line, read them all & you'll come away with a somewhat different conclusion.

Then read the rest of Lincoln's works - many available on line- and maybe Goodwin's TEAM OF RIVALS- then we'll talk, ich.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 11:52 AM

On the other hand, the clever Republicans have subsidized their current 'policy' with a new buisness venture

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:13 PM

Oh, I have no desire to "talk" about this, Greg. If Democrats want to claim Lincoln, fine. Claim him. He was a raging racist. You want me to post some of his quotes comparing whites and blacks? And he wasn't a man of "great complexity," as historians try to claim when his political shenanigans are pointed out. He was a huckster trying to get elected and re-elected. He would have continued the institution of slavery if it would have secured his political future.

Lincoln was also a fascist dictator who suspended habeas corpus, and that's the reason I don't care for him. Racists are a dime a dozen, but fascist dictators don't come along very often.

On the positive side, Lincoln did defeat Lord Palmerston's efforts to divide and conquer the U.S. in the name of Empire, so that's to Lincoln's credit. He did what he had to do when his ass was on the line.

What I find interesting about the Democrat/Republican divide nowadays is that Democrats are much more racist than Republicans. And I don't mean "racist" in a derogatory or mean sense. I believe Democrats want to do good things in the area of race. But, Democrats tend to view all issues through the filter of race first. The habit has become especially pronounced now that we have Obama in the presidency. If a person criticizes Obama, Democrats must first examine the criticism for signs of racism. And that's absurd. Obama's a wannabe fascist. He demonstrated that by saying he would disregard the Cap and Trade defeat and implement EPA restrictions through executive fiat. Fascist behavior. Oh, my...did I say that because I'm a racist?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:59 PM

Actually I know a lot of Democrats who do not fit that generalization--they think in terms of human beings, progress, bertterment in general. Race issues are specific tot he particular scenarios where they are a factor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

Oh, I have no desire to "talk" about this...Lincoln was also a fascist dictator ...

Whoo, boy...... and I have no desire to try and reach a reasoned accommodation with a fu$king moron & lunatic.

Piss off, ich.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 02:55 PM

Itch is trolling or is mentally deranged. No point in answering his posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 06:45 PM

Whoo, boy...... and I have no desire to try and reach a reasoned accommodation with a fu$king moron & lunatic.

Piss off, ich.

Thank you for that splendid example of freedom of speech, Greg. Wasn't Lincoln a strong supporter of freedom of speech? I mean, before he began incarcerating people for speaking out against his government.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 01:09 PM

Go for it , ich! - each new absurdity of yours just digs that moron hole a little bit deeper.

Never said I didn't support freedom of speech for morons - I most certainly DO - but that don't change the fact that they're morons.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 08:28 PM

Frank Rich tackles the Rove Axis of Revised History:
"...Could any of this non-reality-based shtick stick? So far the answer is No. RoveÕs book and Keep America Safe could be the best political news for the White House in some time. This new eruption of misinformation and rancor vividly reminds Americans why they couldnÕt wait for Bush and Cheney to leave Washington.

But the old regimeÕs attack squads are relentless and shameless. The Obama administration, which put the brakes on any new investigations into Bush-Cheney national security malfeasance upon taking office, will sooner or later have to strike back. Once the Bush-Cheney failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran again come home to roost, as they undoubtedly and explosively will, someone will have to remind our amnesia-prone nation who really enabled AmericaÕs enemies in the run-up to 9/11 and in its aftermath.

ThereÕs a good reason why RoveÕs memoir is titled ÒCourage and Consequence,Ó not ÒTruth or Consequences.Ó Its spin is so uninhibited that even ÒBrownie, youÕre doing a heck of a job!Ó is repackaged with an alibi. The bookÕs apolitical asides are as untrustworthy as its major events. For all RoveÕs self-proclaimed expertise as a student of history, he writes that eight American presidents assumed office Òas a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor.Ó (HeÕs off by only three.) After a peculiar early narrative detour to combat reports of his late adoptive fatherÕs homosexuality, Rove burnishes his family values cred with repeated references to his own happy heterosexual domesticity. This, too, is a smoke screen: Readers learned months before the book was published that his marriage ended in divorce.

RoveÕs overall thesis on the misbegotten birth of the Iraq war is a stretch even by his standards. ÒWould the Iraq war have occurred without W.M.D.?Ó he writes. ÒI doubt it.Ó He claims that Bush would have looked for other ways Òto constrainÓ Saddam Hussein had the intelligence not revealed IraqÕs Òunique threatÓ to AmericaÕs security. Even if you buy RoveÕs predictable (and easily refuted) claims that the White House neither hyped, manipulated nor cherry-picked the intelligence, his portrait of Bush as an apostle of containment is absurd. And morally offensive in light of the carnage that followed. As Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin PowellÕs former chief of staff, said on MSNBC, itÕs Ònot a very comforting thingÓ to tell the families of the American fallen Òthat if the intelligence community in the United States, on which we spend about $60 billion a year, hadnÕt made this colossal failure, we probably wouldnÕt have gone to war.Ó

Rove and his book are yesterday. Keep America Safe is on the march. Liz CheneyÕs crackpot hit squad achieved instant notoriety with its viral video demanding the names of Obama Justice Department officials who had served as pro bono defense lawyers for Guant‡namo Bay detainees. The video branded these government lawyers as Òthe Al Qaeda SevenÓ and juxtaposed their supposed un-American activities with a photo of Osama bin Laden. As if to underline the McCarthyism implicit in this smear campaign, the Cheney ally Marc Thiessen (one of the two former Bush speechwriters now serving as Washington Post columnists) started spreading these charges on television with a giggly, repressed hysteria uncannily reminiscent of the snide Joe McCarthy henchman Roy Cohn.

This McCarthyism has not advanced nearly so far as the original brand. Among those who have called out Keep America Safe for its indecent impugning of honorable AmericansÕ patriotism are Kenneth Starr, Lindsey Graham and former Bush administration lawyers in the conservative Federalist Society. When even the relentless pursuer of Monicagate is moved to call a right-wing jihad Òout of bounds,Ó as Starr did in this case, thatÕs a fairly good indicator that itÕs way off in crazyland.

This is hardly the only recent example of RepublicansÕ distancing themselves from the Cheney mob. The new conservative populist insurgency regards the Bush administration as a skunk at its Tea Parties and has no use for its costly foreign adventures. One principal Tea Party forum, the Freedom Works Web site presided over by Dick Armey, doesnÕt even mention national security in a voluminous manifesto on Òkey issuesÓ as far-flung as Internet taxes and asbestos lawsuit reform. Ron Paul won the straw poll at last monthÕs Conservative Political Action Conference after giving a speech calling the Bush doctrine of Òpreventive warÓ a euphemism for ÒaggressiveÓ and ÒunconstitutionalÓ war. PaulÕs son, Rand, who has said he would not have voted for the Iraq invasion, is leading the polls in KentuckyÕs G.O.P. Senate primary and has been endorsed by Sarah Palin.

In this spectrum, the Keep America Safe crowd is a fringe. But it still must be challenged. As weÕve learned the hard way, little fictions, whether about Òdeath panelsÓ or Òuranium from Africa,Ó can grow mighty fast in the 24/7 media echo chamber. Liz CheneyÕs unsupportable charges are not quarantined in the Murdoch empire. Her chummy off-camera relationship with a trio of network news stars, reported last week by Joe Hagan in New York magazine, helps explain her rise in the so-called mainstream media. For that matter, Thiessen was challenged more thoroughly in an interview by Jon Stewart on ÒThe Daily ShowÓ on Tuesday than he has been by any representative of non-fake television news...."

---

Making claims that the nation was not attacked during Bush's watch is like saying Mussolini was a farmer and Stalin raised orchids...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 08:44 PM

Õ ?
Ó ?
Ò ?

I don't think much attention will be paid to Rove's book. ZZZZZZ....
Neither help nor hinder the Republicans. Not even Fox of CNN had much to say about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 10:30 AM

SOrry--those weird "O"'s are an artifact of pasting from the NYT.

That no-one will pay attention does make his rampant revisionism and self-interested lying about things any less repulsive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:07 AM

==does NOT... Doh!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

Yep, I make those little mistakes too.

Digression-
My wife is a sucker for books by politicians, regardless of stripe. We once offered some in a batch of books to a used dealer. He grinned, and told us just to put them in the recycle bin- they never sell from his shelves.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 01:48 AM

The Republicans???? Isn't that the other ganf of corrupt pieces of shit that pretend to be different than the Democraps??

Waving,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 01:50 AM

ooops typo..fixed it!

The Republicans???? Isn't that the other gang of corrupt pieces of shit that pretend to be different than the Democraps??

Waving,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 05:26 PM

How to Speak Republican

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:02 PM

One part of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's three-part Canadian tour has been canceled after protesters made the environment unsafe. Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night as part of a tour organized by the International Free Press Society and student conservative groups at each campus. Before her arrival, Frances Houle, the vice president and provost of the university, sent Coulter a letter warning that "Canadian laws for freedom of speech differ from those in the United States," Macleans reported. "He advised that before arriving at the University of Ottawa campus Coulter should 'educate [her]self as to what is acceptable in Canada' and to 'weigh [her] words with respect and civility in mind.' " Coulter doesn't do well with respect and civility. The pundit is famous for her writing, which many equate with hate speech. More than 200 students gathered outside of Coulter's speaking location in protest; at least one sign read: "Free speech stops at hate speech." When the event was canceled because security deemed the toxic environment unsafe for both Coulter and audience members, protesters broke into chants of: "Whose campus? Our campus!" The day before, at the first stop on her tour, Coulter addressed hundreds at the University of Western Ontario. Coulter "told the crowd that Muslims should be banned from airplanes and instead use 'flying carpets,' " Macleans reported. When one Muslim student asked how she should travel, as she didn't own a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: olddude
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:23 PM

Rove, why isn't his book in the fiction section, can someone explain to me what fiction is ... I read some excerpts .... it is up there with star trek ... Good grief does the lie ever stop ...?? At least star trek had hot women in it ...

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 08:26 PM

Coulter speaks here in Calgary tomorrow. She makes good money with her shock talks; but, like Limbaugh, I wouldn't tie her in to the Republicans, she has no real philosophy but speaks to stir up the crowd.

Calgary is about 20% "visible" immigrant, including a large number of Muslims, so she might be able to garner the attention that her shock talk profession demands in order to be worthy of press attention.

It is dark and dreary, cold and windy in Calgary today. If it is like that tomorrow, she might not attract a big enough demonstration to generate much coverage.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 09:20 PM

I hope she gets the Cold Shoulder.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:19 PM

I wouldn't tie [coulter] in to the Republicans...

Why ever not? The Republicans fall over esch other tying themselves to her!

And when was the last (first?) time you heard a Republican repudiating - or even mildly criticising - her?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:27 PM

Indeed, the lady stands as the loudmouth piece of the Right WIng. She single-handedly perverted the adjective liberal and turned it into a cuss word in the minds of the not-quite-bright. If the Republican party owns Bush and his activated demagogue base, they own Ann Coulter and her hate campaigns.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: ichMael
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:00 PM

Coulter is a gatekeeper for the right, same as Amy Goodman is a gatekeeper for the left. Together, they help to keep the mass of voters focused on "the other party."

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:09 PM

I wish you folks would stop attacking a friend of mine, Ann Coulter. It's not nice.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM

Well, you can usually tell a lot about a person by who they have - or claim- as friends.

Brainless Bloviators of a feather...

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:07 PM

DougR:

If she is in fact a friend of yours, I would be interested to hear from you what she thinks the value of her highly acidic prose is, what she believes the definition of the word liberal is, and why she never seems to be able to take the same kind of medicine she likes to dish out. Even her titles are hateful.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:53 AM

Hey Poppa Amos, how and when did President Reagan eradicate the Glass Steagall act???

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 05:57 PM

""Well, you can usually tell a lot about a person by who they have - or claim- as friends.""

It was early last December,
As far as I remember,
I was stumbling down the street in sodden pride,
When I fell into the gutter,
Thinking thoughts I dared not utter,
And a pig come up and lay down by my side.

Two old ladies passing by,
Cast on me a jaundiced eye,
And I thought I overheard one of them say,
"You can tell a man who boozes,
By the company he chooses."
And the pig got up and slowly walked away!

Works for other things than booze, too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 05:14 PM

Amos get all tight lipped when you ask him questions.

Is he holding out on us or is he just to proud and stubborn to admit when he is wrong?

I make misteaks. It ain't no sin. It is human to err. Only gods never make mistakes.

Even Obama admits to some mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:33 PM

Yap, yap, Sawz. Find something interesting to say.

IF I blamed it on Reagan, I was mistaken. It was repealed by the bill pushed through the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999, back when Bill Clinton was President. Despite the fact that he was bucking a rightie majority, I think Clinton should have vetoed the Gramm-Leach bill. The arguments against Glass Steagal proved to be completely self-serving, specious and wrong, as witnessed by the current state of affairs.

Although it should also be said, Sawz, to offset your supercilious gloatery, that the movement that deregulated the banks so they could ruin the economy was very much a piece of the Reagonomic movement. Remember trickle down? Right? Still waiting for that trickle?

"July 1983, Treasury Secretary presents to the President the proposed bank industry deregulation that includes Òboth bank and thrift holding companies to engage in a wide range of securities, insurance, and other financial activities.Ó Rosenstein, Jay. "Reagan hears Treasury's dereg plan; growing opposition causes delay action." American Banker (July 8, 1983)

July 11, 1983, President sends to Congress the Financial Institutions Deregulation Act. ÒDeregulation bill is sent to Congress: proposal would expand bank, thrift activities." American Banker (July 11, 1983)

January 17, 1984, Treasury Secretary feels that competitors to the banking industry are "Échipping away at [the system]. If that continues and banks aren't given the identical opportunities to other financial services companies, the banking system's base will simply erode and could collapse.Ó Ringer, Richard. "Regan says Bush panel to finish report this week. (Donald T. Regan; George Bush)." American Banker (Jan 17, 1984)
In February 1985, acting general counsel Margery Waxman Òrecommends that Treasury Secretary James Baker add provisions empowering banks to underwrite mutual funds, and to allow bank holding companies to own securities brokerage houses, items missing from last year's [1984] Senate bill.Ó Naylor, Bartlett. "Will Baker, former bank attorney, fight hard for new banking laws?." American Banker (June 3, 1985)

November 5, 1985, ÒGeorge Gould, nominated to be Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance, seeks additional powers for banks to underwrite commercial paper and mutual funds.Ó Naylor, Bartlett. "Treasury to limit new bank powers quest, nominee says." American Banker (Nov 8, 1985)

ÒBanking lawyer Peter Wallison, former general counsel at the Treasury Dept, is promoting the same ideas for bank reform he touted in the early days of the Reagan administration. Wallison believes that restrictions on capital should be relaxed and banks allowed to diversify into markets more lucrative than loans. He says Congress is too focused on capital and has weakened good deregulation legislation promoted by the Bush Administration.ÓCummins, Claudia. "Former Reagan official still fighting for banks." American Banker (August 14, 1992)"

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:08 AM

Personally, I think both the extremes have fallen off their rockers, both right and left.....and both have the power of persuasion, to lead their lemming followers off the cliff. It's been perfectly obvious, even in here....matter of fact, I think their contrived dialogues, have divided not only the country, UNNECESSARILY, but have compromised sound and rational thinking. Not only that, I'm persuaded that it has now, and for some time, been nothing but street theater to perform psychological warfare on America!
Sweet Dreams!

SINCERELY,

GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:30 PM

Thank you Amos for your desperate, herculean eforts to tie repeal of the Glass Steagall act to Reagan in an effort to salvage your non existent credibility.

Now tell us who was promoting the repeal of the Glass Steagall act [aka GLBA] in 1999? Summers convinced President Bill Clinton to sign several Republican bills into law which opened the floodgates for banks to abuse their powers.

And when McCain and Democrat Maria Cantwell tried to introduce a bill to reinstate the act in 2009, Who shot it down?

Hint, he was a friend of Angelo and big recipient of campaign donations from the companies who benefited from repeal of the act and he had a big D in front of his title.

He said "I think going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman."

He also voted for the repeal as well as 77% of Democrats which included Boxer, Biden, Byrd, Kennedy, Kerry, etc, many of the indignant Democrats that want to blame it on Republicans.

He also had the multimillion dollar Wall Street fat cat Boss Hogg bonuses that the Dems howled about written into TARP and later claimed his staff did it without his knowledge.

Do you think the banks got their money's worth?


C********** J. D*** (D)
Top Contributors

SAC Capital Partners............$248,200
Citigroup Inc...................$155,594
Royal Bank of Scotland..........$142,600
United Technologies.............$141,500
Bear Stearns....................$118,550
Goldman Sachs...................$105,400
Travelers Companies..............$98,900
American International Group.....$98,100
The Hartford.....................$92,250
JPMorgan Chase & Co..............$72,250
Ernst & Young....................$70,750
Merrill Lynch....................$68,300
Morgan Stanley...................$67,100
General Electric.................$60,850
KPMG LLP.........................$59,900
Pricewaterhouse Coopers..........$59,800
Apollo Advisors..................$57,900
Bank of America..................$57,850
UBS AG...........................$54,200
Liberty Mutual Insurance.........$52,800

        Total                      $11,532,096

Whaddaya think Bobert? That would feed a lot of hungry kids wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:38 PM

Personally, I think both the extremes have fallen off their rockers, both right and left...

Really quite amusing, since the "Extreme Left" in the United States probably numbers a couple of thousand individuals at most.

Unless you're one of the brain-dead who characherizes our slightly right-of-center President Obama as a "radical leftist"...

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:14 PM

""Unless you're one of the brain-dead who characherizes our slightly right-of-center President Obama as a "radical leftist"...""

You have to remember Greg, that you are dealing with people who think Jenghis Khan, and Attila the Hun were Left Wing Pink-Os.

What tickles me is that the majority of them make a big thing of being Christians.

If Christ came down to Earth today, he would be thought of as a bit of a Commie.

Go figure!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:55 AM

Speaking of 'off your rockers'...........


Greg F: "Really quite amusing, since the "Extreme Left" in the United States probably numbers a couple of thousand individuals at most.

Unless you're one of the brain-dead who characterizes our slightly right-of-center President Obama as a "radical leftist"... "

GfS: Okay Greg, explain your post. I'm listening, honestly.

As far as DonT, he bitches about ANYTHING, so, I'd rather hear from you.

Open ears,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:50 AM

""As far as DonT, he bitches about ANYTHING, so, I'd rather hear from you.""

Says it all really. No decent counter argument? What the hell, I'll just make a snide comment about the poster.

No change there then GfS.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 09:50 AM

GfS- if you truly need it explained to you, there's absolutely no point in my attempting to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:57 AM

GfS, Greg T is right, If you think Obama is "radical" or a "leftist" your problem is with the English language. Start with a dictionary and an introductory text on political philosophies.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:42 PM

All I asked for was an explanation....all I got was NOTHING....except for DonT's bitching as per aforementioned. I'm not entirely disagreeing with Greg.

Greg, without lectures on my capacity to understand the English language, elaborate....please.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:31 PM

GfS, see Jack @ 11:57 AM above and follow his instructions.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:56 PM

What then?..Do you think he is a 'moderate'?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:06 PM

Greg F: (from the Kucinich thread).."Of course it doesn't- but its nothing new. The Right has pisssed and moaned about the same thing with regard to Public Assistance, AFDC, etc.

Same old BS."

From this thread: "Really quite amusing, since the "Extreme Left" in the United States probably numbers a couple of thousand individuals at most.

Unless you're one of the brain-dead who characherizes our slightly right-of-center President Obama as a "radical leftist"... "


GfS: I think your rocker is rocking, without you in it!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:24 PM

OOOOps.....forgot to sign in.....


Greg F: (from the Kucinich thread).."Of course it doesn't- but its nothing new. The Right has pisssed and moaned about the same thing with regard to Public Assistance, AFDC, etc.

Same old BS."

From this thread: "Really quite amusing, since the "Extreme Left" in the United States probably numbers a couple of thousand individuals at most.

Unless you're one of the brain-dead who characherizes our slightly right-of-center President Obama as a "radical leftist"... "


GfS: I think your rocker is rocking, without you in it!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:29 AM

(03-30) 04:00 PDT Washington --

The Republican National Committee spent tens of thousands of dollars last month on luxury jets, posh hotels and other high-flying expenses, according to new Federal Election Commission filings, including nearly $2,000 for "meals" at Voyeur West Hollywood, a nightclub featuring topless dancers simulating lesbian sex.

The RNC spent more than $17,000 on private jet travel in February as well as nearly $13,000 for limousines, according to the documents. The GOP's main political committee also ran up tabs at numerous posh hotels, including the Beverly Hills Hotel ($9,000); the Beverly Wilshire Four Seasons ($6,600) and the W Hotel in Washington ($15,000), and spent more than $43,000 on its controversial midwinter meeting in Hawaii, not including airfare.

The disclosures create another spending controversy for the RNC and its chairman, Michael Steele, who has come under steady fire from Democrats and some fellow Republicans for his financial stewardship of the organization.

The RNC said in a statement Monday that it was investigating the Voyeur West Hollywood expenditure, which it said was "a reimbursement made to a non-committee staffer." The committee also said it was requesting that the money be returned and emphasized that Steele was not at the event.

"The chairman was never at the location in question, he had no knowledge of the expenditure, nor does he find the use of committee funds at such a location at all acceptable," the RNC statement said.

The committee had more than $22 million on hand when Steele arrived last year, but is down to under $10 million now despite raising $96 million during that time, records show. A previous dustup over Steele's spending habits prompted party leaders to approve new restrictions requiring more oversight and competitive bidding for contracts over $100,000. The Daily Caller Web site, which first noted the new Federal Election Commission filings, also reported that Steele had initially suggested that the RNC should purchase a private jet for his travels after he first took over the job.

Steele's spending habits have prompted angry complaints from wealthy GOP donors and party officials, who fear the chairman is making poor financial decisions and undercutting the GOP's attempt to cast itself as the party of fiscal responsibility.

"Nothing surprises me," said one former RNC aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It definitely speaks to the desire for first-class accommodations over there

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/30/MN3M1CMTME.DTL&type=politics#ixzz0jfNCeFtx

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:44 AM

The committee had more than $22 million on hand when Steele arrived last year, but is down to under $10 million now despite raising $96 million during that time, records show.

They're simply following the economic example set by the Bush Administration- what's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:14 AM

>>What then?..Do you think he is a 'moderate'?

He, like most US politicians, is actually fairly conservative.

Again,

Start with a dictionary and an introductory text on political philosophies.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:55 AM

Hint,

Hugo Chavez is is a radical leftist.

He nationalized the oil company.

Obama isn't trying to nationalize anything.

(Before you burst into hysterics, please educate yourself on what it actually means to nationalize a business.)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:33 PM

John P: Your 05 March post: you could easily have been describing the Democratic Party when the Republicans were in the majority.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:16 PM

DougR

Is it too much to ask that you just quote the snippets you are referring to rather than identifying the whole post by date?

The posts are hard to find and half the time when I do, it is not clear what you are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:32 PM

Yes, Jack, I have noticed that you do have a problem with understanding a few things, however, I usually note a date and time of the post so it shouldn't be too challenging.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM

Is it too much to ask that you just quote the snippets you are referring to rather than identifying the whole post by date AND TIME?

The posts are hard to find and half the time when I do, it is not clear what you are talking about.

You see you method only works when there is on thing and only one thing in the post.

Do you need someone to tell you how to cut and paste and use quotes?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:57 PM

Jack- there's this old bit about "teaching a pig to sing...."

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:58 AM

Jack the Sailor: "Obama isn't trying to nationalize anything.

(Before you burst into hysterics, please educate yourself on what it actually means to nationalize a business.)

Not AIG, not GM, not the insurance companies, not the banks...nope, not nuttin'.................

Can you sing, yet?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:06 AM

That you for proving my point Saw. You didn't bother to find out what it meant. Yap away! Say what you want. You say idiotic things. You have no credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:24 AM

Jack the Ass: "That you for proving my point Saw. You didn't bother to find out what it meant. Yap away! Say what you want. You say idiotic things. You have no credibility."

GfS: I have no credibility??? You have no comprehension or retention!!

SAW, didn't post to you. I did.

Credibility??????????

You still can't sing!
(Probably dementia)

GfS.......AKA Saw, or Rumpelstiltskin, or President Napoleon, or Jim Morrison....or.........

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:28 AM

Jack and Sanity: Chill!!!!

Thank you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:29 AM

Okay...but it WAS fun!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 12:01 PM

Republican Governors Embrace 17th-Century Would-Be Terrorist


The Republican Governors Association "has embraced the symbolism" of Guy Fawkes with "a rather striking website," reports Time's Michael Scherer. Fawkes, a Catholic radical, is best known for his unsuccessful attempt to kill King James I by blowing up the British House of Parliament on Nov. 5, 1605. In RememberNovember.com, the Republican Governors Association seems to be embracing the symbolism of Fawkes through a high-quality dramatic video that positions President Obama as King James, the Democratic leadership as the British Parliament, and Republicans as the ones who are fed up and just don't want to take it anymore. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall finds this message "completely bewildering" considering Fawkes "tried but failed to pull off a mass casualty terrorist attack."
Time | Saturday, April 24, 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 02:02 PM

And when the Repubs and their TeaBagger friends finally manage to encite some demented asshole to actually kill someone (or a bunch of someones) they'll blame it all on thre Democrats, of course.

Fawkes, as I recall, was convicted of treason & drawn and quartered.

So, the Republicans are now advocating treason?

What passes for the Republican Party is getting dangerously close to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 09:29 AM

Bill Maher, American humorist, writes in the Huffington Post:

" New Rule: The Republican leadership in America must produce their birth certificates! Not because I doubt they're Americans, I just want to make sure they're not eight-years-old.

I mention this because a major talking point on Fox News and hate radio these days is that, after a year and a half of Obama, it's time to bring the "adults" back into power, so they can rein in our deficit, defeat terrorism, and focus on America's real enemy: cleaning ladies in Arizona. But I must protest the premise, because conservatives are the ones who tend to believe in magical ideas, like: America is never wrong; you can defeat terrorism militarily; and lower taxes will somehow fix the deficit. And I'm not even mentioning the stuff about how Jesus used to fly around on a pterodactyl and just hated it when homos ate wedding cake.

Now, am I saying there are no adults in today's Republican Party? Absolutely not, there are -- but like a lot of parents today, the adults let their kids cow them. And silence them. And rule over them. Rush Limbaugh is a child, a primal scream of a man, but he gets his way because he's the fat bully on the playground; and Glenn Beck is the weepy kid who's always crying because he's insane and you don't know what he's going to do and who he's going to take with him.

For example: to solve our debt crisis, a bunch of Republican senators suggested a bipartisan debt commission, which is the adult thing to do. But when Obama agreed to it, immediately seven of them said no -- now they're against it. Because Obama has cooties. Democrats have cooties, so you can't vote with them, or work with them, and compromise is treason. Compare this to England, where they just had an election two weeks ago and, power changed hands -- but the party that lost is working WITH the part that won -- they are not accusing them of being Bolshevik Zulus out to destroy the Magna Carta. Because the English are grown ups, including their conservatives who enjoy a wonderful luxury that conservatives on this side of the pond do not. They're allowed to be sane. They don't have to pander to creationists and anti-intellectuals. Only in this dumb country do liberals and conservatives argue over things like "evolution" and "climate change" and whether "sick people should be left to die in the street." "

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 May 10 - 10:16 AM

Unfortunately, its not humorous at all, Amos. Its the depressing truth.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 25 May 10 - 12:40 PM

But let's not go overboard about the intelligence of Brits:
NYT: Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 02:29 PM

Ex-Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer indicted on six felony counts
By Matt DeLong

Jim Greer, former head of the Florida Republican Party, was arrested Wednesday morning at his home near Orlando, law enforcement officials said. The Orlando Sun-Sentinel reports that at a press conference Wednesday, statewide prosecutor William Shepherd said that "a statewide grand jury indicted Greer on six felony charges: organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, and four counts of grand theft."

Shepherd said Greer developed a scheme to take money from the Republican Party. He used the money for his personal expenses.
The Associated Press has more details:

Greer funneled party money to a company called Victory Strategies that he controlled and concealed his relationship with, investigators said. On Greer's orders, the Republican Party of Florida paid Victory Strategies for campaign work, much of which was never performed. That was in addition to a 10 percent cut of major donations to the party that Greer took along with his top assistant, Delmar Johnson, Shepherd said.

Greer got about $125,000 of the almost $200,000 that the party paid Victory Strategies, the statewide prosecutor said.

Victory Strategies also received money from a fund Greer had set up for his re-election campaign as party chairman, he added.



The St. Petersburg Times has the affidavit (pdf).

In April, Greer was named as the subject of a criminal probe concerning "a secret contract that funneled party money to a consulting company he owned," the Miami Herald reported. Greer, a close ally of Gov. Charlie Crist, stepped down from his post in January under pressure from party activists and major donors outraged by lavish spending. Crist said Wednesday that the arrest was "disappointing " but he does not "feel complicit."

When asked earlier this year about his support for Greer, Crist responded,"I didn't have a crystal ball. Neither did you."

More on Greer's financial scandal from the AP:

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has been investigating Greer since an audit found he awarded himself and his executive director a fundraising contract that paid them about $200,000.
Greer owned 60 percent of a corporation set up to raise money for the party and former party executive director Delmar Johnson owned the other 40 percent. That corporation got a 10 percent commission on money it brought in, the audit found.
Current party Chairman John Thrasher previously said he was told March 15 that the party may have been the victim of illegal activity after the audit discovered Greer and Johnson's role in the corporation. Thrasher reported the findings to the attorney general's office, which referred the case to state officials.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 02:41 PM

Finally, the Republicans will get to play the victim!

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 10 - 07:12 PM

The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.

And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.

Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.

Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.

This was not a disaster that could be remedied overnight. By taking bold action at the beginning of his administration, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress prevented the financial crisis from morphing into a Great Depression -- but the Republicans, some Democrats, and the powerful special interests have done everything they can to throw sand into the gears of change. Most importantly, they have stood in the way of providing enough economic stimulus to launch a robust, widespread economic recovery.

But notwithstanding Republican opposition, Obama, the Democrats and their progressive allies have -- after a century of trying -- finally passed health care reform allowing America to end its status as the only industrialized nation that did not provide health care as a right. They are on the brink of reining in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. And they have set the stage for massive long-term investments in economic growth and clean energy.

But it has been hard to pull the car out of the deep economic ditch and Americans are angry at the slow pace of economic recovery -- and also at the special interests that profited from their economic pain.

So the Republicans now have the audacity to argue that President Obama and the Democrats are somehow responsible for the hardships that they themselves created. In effect they want the election to be a referendum on whether the Democrats have mopped and swept fast enough cleaning up the mess that they created.

They will do everything they can to prevent America from focusing on the real choice before them in the fall elections -- a choice between going backward to the failed policies of the past that caused this catastrophe and a new direction that will create sustainable, long-term, bottom-up, widely shared economic growth. The real question before the country is whether it is willing to hand over the keys to the economy once again to the same gang that just caused the most serious economic pile up in 60 years.

That's where the dirty little secrets come in. It turns out that the leaders of the Republican Party have learned nothing from the reckless escapade that caused so much economic pain, and came perilously close to inflicting mortal wounds on the American economy.

They still actually believe -- despite what we have all just experienced -- that by "freeing" big oil, the insurance companies and Wall Street banks of the "burdens" of government accountability, that the plutocrats and the "invisible hand" of the market will lead American into the promised land of economic prosperity.

Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:

¥ Meet Congressman Paul Ryan.

[we ask everyone to refrain from long copy/pastes --- here is the link]
a clone

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/dirty-little-secrets-the_b_645404.html

Instead, Democrats need to take the offensive and dominate the national conversation by talking about what the Republicans actually believe and what they would do if they win in November. Voters must be offered a stark choice between Democratic and Republican policies in the fall. If they are, "Conventional Wisdom" that keeps predicting a Democratic disaster will be proven wrong, the same way it was when it predicted that America would never elect a tall, skinny African American guy named Barack Obama.


(Robert Creamer, HuffPo)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 01:40 AM

The biggest mistake by far that the Dems and the White House made was refusing to go after the Bush administration for war crimes and for the stolen money by contractors. I find it so outrageous that they could have stonewalled taking any action that they deserve to get clobbered by the very people they refused to prosecute. Cheney should be dead now. He should have been hounded into his grave by lawsuits and charges and they left him alone even after he started running his mouth last year. I have no sympathy for the dems. Their negligence at bringing charges against the Bush administration and cowing every republican into silence and acquiescence is inexcusable and extremely poor politicking. When you can get the other party by the balls, you don't hesitate--you grab and squeeze. Force them to surrender scapegoats for prison terms and punishments, prosecute them and then let them know it's not enough--you want more. I'm completely disillusioned with both this Congress and this administration. Absolutely no balls.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 07:12 AM

Yeah, you got the "no balls" 100% correct... Doesn't matter much where you look or what they have done... They have cowtied to the minority...

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 12:31 PM

No balls, huh? More like 'good sense'.

As much as I LIKE the idea of calling Bush & his cronies to answer for their crimes.... and the various contractors and banks and oil companies and investment firms, etc. to answer for THEIR stupid, greedy practices for theirs...
Can you imagine what the news would have been like the last year? Can you imagine trying to juggle the recovery, the war(s), the environment, immigration,the Health Care process, Wall Street reform...etc...etc..ETC!!! while running 4-5 simultaneous special prosecutors and trying to pry enough evidence that would stand up in court out of 10,000 hidey-holes?
It would be unlikely that enough votes could be found for conviction, and would have totally distracted from 'getting something done'.

Better, as frustrating as it is, to let The Huffington Post, PolitFact.com, Rachel Maddow, Mother Jones...etc., lay out all the evidence of Republican crimes and/or scandals in ways that are not boring hearings and don't tie up Congress with tedious routines that would be continuously stonewalled by procedures and votes.

Obama is not stupid.... he reads the papers. He knows what people are saying, but he knows that he had 2 years to get stuff passed before mid-terms, and who knows.... maybe there IS still time after Nov. to have a few investigations.

(oh...one of the major targets, Cheney, would have gotten so many reprieves due to his health [and so much sympathy] that they'd bever have completed an investigation and prosecution of him.)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 12:39 PM

Oh...and can you also imagine the Republican campaign ads this year if we HAD seen failed attempts to convict the 'suspects'?

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 01:10 PM

"Obama is not stupid.... he reads the papers."

                   That's where Will Rogers got all of his information too.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 04:58 PM

Will wasn't stupid either. And obama reads much more than the papers,


A

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 06:54 PM

(I see that Bobert invented a new verb up there..."cowtied". Is that what they do at Mooooooveon dot org?)
Perhaps a cheaper way of getting to the moon? "We don't need no steenkin' rockets... we just cowtie before she jumps."

(No, Bobert, I didn't have anything better to do tonight...it's way too hot to mow, so I sit here and mess with folks...)

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 07:40 PM

Good point, Bill, and (Mooooooooooveon dot org) has proven to be an udder disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 07:48 PM

Amos: You are privy to what the President reads? "He reads considerably more than just the newspapers." While I agree he probably does, and receives up-to-date information we will never hear or see, it would be a bit arrogant of me to make such a statement.

Rant and rave about the Republicans as you wish. The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding will be ready on November 2nd. I predicted a disaster of an election for Democrats months ago and I stand by that prediction (regardless of MSNBC, Huffington, etc. etc.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:27 PM

it would be a bit arrogant of me to make such a statement

Hasn't stopped you up til now, Douggie-Boy.

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:32 PM

Why arrogant to say what no one doubts? You are fishing for ways to belittle ANYTHING a liberal says...which sure identifies you as parroting the current Republican line. "Throw MORE mud...maybe some will stick."

Subject: RE: BS: The republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 10:36 PM

I've read several discussions he has had with others abut things he has read. He talks about some in his books, also.

Nothing arrogant about it at all, Doug.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 11:10 PM

Listen, ya'll... Ain't 'bout who's right and who ain't... 'Bout PR and spin and knowin' that if 'nuff folks ain't happy in November then, yeah, the Dems lose big time...

Up to the Dems (think Obama) to make this about crap that Bush left to be cleaned up...

That's purdy much the politics of it all...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 07:22 AM

When it comes to reading, Obama is a lot like Reagan. He reads a good speech off the teleprompter, but he doesn't do so well acappella.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 07:46 AM

Not like Reagan at all.

Pres. Obama understands what he's saying, and can still remember what he said after he's thru speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 09:12 AM

"My Princeton colleague Larry Bartels sums it up as follows: "Objective economic conditions — not clever television ads, debate performances, or the other ephemera of day-to-day campaigning — are the single most important influence upon an incumbent president's prospects for re-election." If the economy is improving strongly in the months before an election, incumbents do well; if it's stagnating or retrogressing, they do badly.

Now, the fact that "ephemera" don't matter seems reassuring, suggesting that voters aren't swayed by cheap tricks. Unfortunately, however, the evidence suggests that issues don't matter either, in part because voters are often deeply ill informed.

Suppose, for example, that you believed claims that voters are more concerned about the budget deficit than they are about jobs. (That's not actually true, but never mind.) Even so, how much credit would you expect Democrats to get for reducing the deficit?

None. In 1996 voters were asked whether the deficit had gone up or down under Bill Clinton. It had, in fact, plunged — but a plurality of voters, and a majority of Republicans, said that it had risen.

There's no point berating voters for their ignorance: people have bills to pay and children to raise, and most don't spend their free time studying fact sheets. Instead, they react to what they see in their own lives and the lives of people they know. Given the realities of a bleak employment picture, Americans are unhappy — and they're set to punish those in office. " Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 09:20 AM

It's kind of like the disinformation the administration puts out about "job's saved." Some people believe it.

          But the most insidious claim of all has to be that "most people favor comprehensive immigration reform." They don't, and they certainly wouldn't if they knew what the administration meant by that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 09:41 AM

Interesting sort of arrogance to claim one knows what most people think. It's exactly the error you are accusing them of, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 10:12 AM

Maybe, but they're are doing it to mislead the public, and I'm simply warning them to look into it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 10:23 AM

In what specific way do you believe "they" are misleading "the public", Rig? Particularly?



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 10:58 AM

There's no point berating voters for their ignorance

Oh Yes, there is, and yes, I will. The "No Facts Need Apply" approach is what put the U.S. in the current shithole its in.

Until these morons take responsibility and educate themselves, the shithole is only going to get deeper, and fast.

videIdiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 11:39 AM

"You are fishing for ways to belittle ANYTHING a liberal says...which sure identifies you as parroting the current Republican line. "Throw MORE mud...maybe some will stick." "


seems to make as much sense as the following true statement:

You are fishing for ways to belittle ANYTHING a conservative says...which sure identifies you as parroting the current liberal line. "Throw MORE mud...maybe some will stick."





I fail to see why someone with the knowledge you have has to join in attacks on individuals instead of attacking the points being presented.

But if you have a losing arguement, I guess it makes sense to shift the attack to the people rather than the ideas they present.





Shame, shame, shame.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 01:14 PM

"In what specific way do you believe "they" are misleading "the public", Rig?"

                They are pandering to the Hispanic vote with no concern about the consequences. The tell the public that the two choices are--make them legal or ship them out. There's a third option the administration doesn't talk about because it makes too much sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

What would that be? Japanese style internment camps? You think Bushie missed a bet there, do you? WHy not integrate them as paying, earning members of society?

Sheesh...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 02:14 PM

Because we have too many people now. All we have to do is ignore them. Make sure they can't get a job or access the welfare system and watch them leave.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 02:24 PM

Who are "they", Rigs???

BTW, Amos... The dems have two problems, one of which Greg has alluded to... The first is the economy... But secondly, and perhaps more difficuly, the Repub BIGASS LIE machine... People are so dumbed down that even if the economy improves the Repubs will SCREAM at the top of their lings that it sisn't and the corporations will run ads that say iot isn't and the dumbed down masses will, like Hitler once said, believe the BIG LIE??? That, unfortuanately is what is going on these days...

Garbage in, garbage out...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 02:41 PM

Illegal immigrants. And that's another thing, nobody will believe the economy is improving as long as the federal government is going after Arizona for enforcing the law.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 03:13 PM

No Bruce... there is no comparison between the Republicans' gratuitous mud-slinging and lying and repetition of offensive slogans and disproven accusations, and the Democrats' criticism OF such tactics.

Tyhe Republicans are seldom FOR anything these days....except vague slogans. They are AGAINST things....like regulation and taxes....and sometimes they are against the very things they were FOR a couple years ago, because the Democrats have adopted a version of them, and we sure can't vote for ANYTHING the Democrats propose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 03:54 PM

No Bill... there is no comparison between the Democrats' gratuitous blaming of all ills on the past, and spending money and imposition of programs that only they see the need for, and increasing taxes, and never taking responsibility for any decisions that they do push through, and the Republicans' criticism OF such tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 04:52 PM

"... gratuitous blaming of all ills on the past, .."

Citations, please... (that list of stuff Bush & cronies ARE to blame for, though long, is hardly 'all'.)

"...programs that only they see the need for,..."


There are none so blind as those who will not see.....the NEED for various programs.

"...never taking responsibility for any decisions that they do push through..."

Responsibility? Hell....we're taking credit! All the health care we could stuff thru Republican stonewalling, all the Wall Street reform we could jam past Republican hand-wringing over losing the freedom to screw the public at will...and a few more that we are proud to be making headway on despite the cries of "No!, No!, No!"

You gotta do better than just re-writing MY posts and pretending they're relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:00 PM

"Republicans' gratuitous mud-slinging "

I think that any mudslinging is justified from the "blame-game" that Obama has been engaged in- blamig the Republicans when he cannot even get his OWN party to agree with him.


"and lying "

BOTH sides have been lying- NOW it is Obama claiming that the "NOT a TAX" IS a tax, in order to make it legal.

"and repetition of offensive slogans and disproven accusations"

I find much of what Pelosi and Reid have stated to be both false and offensive- but so what?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:01 PM

The NAACP became irrelevant and nobody noticed!

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:08 PM

BillD,

"You gotta do better than just re-writing MY posts and pretending they're relevant. "


YOU have to do better than to ask me for citations and provide NONE in your original post- NOT a fair thing, to require of others what you do not give yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:52 PM

well, you sorta prove my point when you just 'assert' that "...any mudslinging is justified from the "blame-game" that Obama has been engaged in.."
...and "I find much of what Pelosi and Reid have stated to be both false and offensive-"
Do I HAVE to site detailed proof that Republican lying & mudslinging is qualitatively different? What good would it do me, if you can just say "I disagree"? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner...(not to mention Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann)..just proclaim ANYTHING that will get played as gospel on Fox....and repeat it, no matter how often it is disproved, using the same basic technique YOU are using - simply asserting that they are right and that even IF they are wrong, their 'opponents' did it too!
You gotta get beyond that worn out, fallacious argument form.



but...Be careful what you ask for...here's an example of distortion on the truth....

Blaming Dems for Bush tax cuts

The facts...

    * Extending the Bush tax cuts would add about $2.3 trillion to the national deficit.
    * On top of that, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and ending the Estate Tax and Gifts Tax would add another $1.1 trillion to the national deficit.
    * Obama's health care reform bill actually reduces the deficit, so fulfilling Republican wishes to repeal health care reform would add another $138 billion.
    * The other Obama proposal that would reduce the deficit is the cap and trade energy legislation. By blocking that, Republicans add another $19 billion to the deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 06:21 PM

"* Obama's health care reform bill actually reduces the deficit, so fulfilling Republican wishes to repeal health care reform would add another $138 billion.
"


Saying this does not make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 07:19 PM

no, compiling the data makes it true. I NEVER claim that my statements alone 'make anything true'.

The current Republican technique, when confronted with an awkward fact, is to sidestep, change the subject and dissemble with 'smoke & mirrors'....

Another example of "just say no" is that they are now trying to cut off extra unemployment payments, when they voted FOR such 4 times under Bush...when it suited their political motives of the moment.

Today I heard a Republican 'analyst', when asked about Obama's very hard-hitting complaint about these tactics, say.."Oh, he was really just being 'defensive'!" She 'asserted' that he was just covering up his failure to act. *grin*.... That is an example of just totally distorting what was actually happening by blatantly 'calling black white' and not even dealing with what everyone heard.

I'll confess, I can't comprehend how to conduct a debate using that system. I'd never be able to keep a straight face...but 'some' seem to find it easy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:05 PM

Obama's Health care bill ONLY reduces debt IF the assumptions put in it are correct- and tyhe OMB has already said they are not. AND it depends on a large expendature for Medicare payments that are NOT included in the Bill, thus hiding half a trillion dollars in costs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:14 PM

Yeah, Bill... There's one shitload of fuzzy math and voodoo economics being advocated by the Repubs... They say they want to fight the deficit but haven't put forth one single thing they would cut.. No, might of fact, they line up at the trough when it's earmark time...

I mean, this ain't all that complicated... If they want to fight the deficit then they are gpoing to have to support higher taxes or massive cuts that we haven't seen in the last 50 years...

So, Repubs out there... let's have yer list of cuts... Come on, just say it... It will set you free... Come on, bruce... Yer a Repub... Waht are you gonna cut and by how much... Social Security perhaps putting millions of our senoirs into poverty??? The military???

)No, Boberdz... Repubs never cut the military...)

Oh yeah, earmarks... Okay, that's about 1% of the budget... That ain't gonna do squat... So where to cut... And be mindfull that many federal cuts will force allready over-burdoned states to increase taxes to cover the shortfalls...

I mean, Repubs just don't have any handle on reality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:47 PM

BB-
What would the Republicans' plan for getting the country out of its present mess look like? All I've heard is deregulate and cut takes, neither of which has proved particularly helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:59 PM

See what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:59 PM

I'm sickened by what they have done to the United States. To blame Obama for trying his damndest to reverse what their greed and lack of conpassion have precipitated here is the ultimate example of blaming the messenger for daring to bring the truthful facts to the fore. Looking at this is truly nauseating. My glass is much more than half full. It is manifestly overflowing. Why? Because I just threw up in it.

Arthur D. Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 09:00 PM

so...another typical Republican distortion:
In an ad against Harry Reid (trying to get Sharron Angle elected without allowing her to put her foot further down her throat), 'someone' claims that under Reid, Nevada got less of the stimulus money than any other state. Ol' Harry can't even get his own state it's share...wow...
except that...it is just not true. There were 13 other states that got less money than Nevada!...which corresponds roughly to Nevada's population ranking.
But who cares if it's TRUE? It is aimed at poor, out of work folks who watch Fox News and who WANT to believe that most of their troubles in Nevada are Harry Reid's fault. It is pure fakery and distortion and is the basic Sharron Angle hype..."EVERYTHING is Harry reid's fault!" She no longer talks to mainstream media, because those meanies ask her questions which she MUST sidestep with some oblique attack on Harry Reid. Angle's website has been taken over by 'someone' who has 'sanitized' it from the wing-nut approach she used before the primary.

I'm curious, BB...do YOU see any problem with Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, the Gov. of Texas, both senators of Oklahoma...and a dozen other FAR right-wing Repubs who are tossing claims and slogans around with little regard for truth or accuracy?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 10:25 PM

Dick Greenhaus said:

"All I've heard is deregulate and cut takes, neither of which has proved particularly helpful."

Dick has it right... this is essentially what GHW Bush called "voodoo economics" when he was running against Reagan. GHWB warned us...

When Reagan came into office, the deficit was 994 billion...when he left office it was 2.8 trillion. Does THAT sound like tax cuts reduced anything?

Read Marco Rubio's plan as he runs for senator from Florida..more here

Now why should anyone believe Rubio's plan is good? *grin*...because ..because-rachel-maddow-thinks-its-wrong

Boy, THAT is sure convincing! And bb wonders where I get all these silly notions that Republicans use bad logic and distortions...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 03:59 PM

Some Republicans, like Rand Paul for instance, use good logic. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was incapable of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 04:10 PM

Repeating a failed effort in the hope of success is one definition of insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 04:17 PM

Too bad! We don't have it in the budget to treat all the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 05:46 PM

Being treated by people who think like that would be something straight out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 06:20 PM

Which explains why Obama is so much like Nurse Ratchet.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 08:14 PM

Hey Rig-
Can you explain what the Repubs would do if they got into power?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 10:50 PM

Can you explain what the Repubs would do if they got into power?

That's easy. Cut taxes on the rich and drive us further into debt. We know that's what they'd do because they said so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 07:13 AM

Ronald Reagan on the other hans, was incapable of THOUGHT.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 07:42 AM

I think Aber-ham Lincoln said that...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 08:42 AM

Yes, by the numbers alone, we know what Republicans do when in office.
Why doesn't Faux News ever tell you about this?

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Just the opposite of what the big lie machine is telling you

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:37 AM

Well, that's an easy one, TIA...

FOX is Boss Hog's private little propaganda machine... Wasn't 'sposed to be like this... The original laws that were written back in the 20's were written with this in mind but...

...Boss Hog packed the FCC with his buddies and corrupted the intent of what used to be airwaves that are owned by the "public"... Now everything is for sale and guess who, thanks to Reagan, has all the cash???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:09 AM

Is there such a thing as Kosher Pork?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:10 AM

Pee in the cup, Rigs...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:28 PM

So I see where the POlitical Firings of DAs scandal was in fact deemed as "inappropriately political", but point-man Alberto Gonzalez has been cleared of criminality in his testimony. Seems he is now teaching and writing a book, but has no publisher yet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:58 PM

Think about it.... if a thousand people riot and set fire and break windows, it's often too hectic to actually arrest anyone..unless there's clear video proof. If hundreds of illegal immigrants mob a poorly staffed checkpoint, most of them will get by. If 5000 people are blowing vuvuzelas, you don't have much chance of shusshing them.

I read that California is about to give hundreds of non-violent prisoners early release because they need cell space for more 'serious' offenders.

And when there are dozens....if not hundreds.... of possible crimes documented from G.W. Bush and Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez on down, the idea of investigating and prosecuting any becomes an exercise in futility. If they DID 'get' a few, after months of spending many $$$$ and distracting the press, people would say "hey, look at the ones
you missed!".

I'm betting that 'certain' conservatives are quite aware of the situation, and push the limits when they see any political hay to be made.

In the same way, the current torrent of 'over-the-top' ads, accusations, slogans, interviews and just plain scare tactics the Republicans are deluging us with are designed to harden their base, and win 'just enough' fence-sitters.....and truth and accuracy be damned! The assertations of 'socialism' and '1st amendment scares' and 'Obamacare' and.... a dozen more... don't NEED to be proven. They just toss 'em out and hope the Democrats will wear themselves out running around fighting brushfires and forgetting how to go on the offensive!

All's fair in love, war & politics? Crap!

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

"Seems he is now teaching and writing a book, but has no publisher yet."

               If he hires the right ghost writer, he won't have any trouble finding a publisher.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:56 PM

"According to The Huffington Post, Iowa's GOP is calling for the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th amendment of the Constitution. And what do they plan to do with that? Strip President Barack Obama's citizenship for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

The current 13th amendment bans slavery and Iowa Republicans are not in favor of changing that. The original amendment outlawed any person who accepts "a title of nobility" from a foreign country while holding political office, which is what they're looking to reintroduce.

Part of the original 13th amendment of the Constitution reads, "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

"The amendment was ratified by 12 states but never got the 13th state that it needed, and thus, never became law," Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent wrote in a recent article.

Since Obama accepted a Nobel Prize, he would be stripped of his citizenship. The same would apply to others such as President Jimmy Carter and economist Joseph Stiglitz, according to The Huffington Post.

Jerry Aldmen from Newsweek reported, "Unfortunately for them, the Department of Justice looked into whether Obama needed Congressional approval to accept the Nobel under the existing emoluments clause, and based on the meaning of "foreign state" (which would not cover the Nobel Prize Committee) concluded that he did not." "

---

Yeah, the Repubs are far-seeing--excellence of the kind that gets Nobel Prizes has no place in Amurika.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:23 PM

I'm hoping that this story about the latest idiocy by the GOP is only a bad joke- if true, its time for me to move out of the good ol'US of A - just too damn many Republican brainless assholes for any sentient being to have to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:38 PM

I hope that the progressives and the Dems are takin' notes here because the last two years of Repub piss poor bevavior maybe is just what America needs...

(Huh???)

This is the way I see it... Seems that the American people are in the mood to reward bad behavior so let the Repub have their reward and have both chambers in Novemeber and then take a page out of their obstructionist book and blow it up like a hundred times so that the American people will finally see the damage that obstructionists can do to the country... But the Dems need to be real staright forward from the very beginning and tell the American people to strap on their seat belts because they (the Dems) are going to do to the Repubs what the Repubs are now doing... The dems need to expalin it very carefully... At some poin the voters are going to no longer reward sandbaggers and showboaters... I mean, if the country is to survive itself then it needs to quit rewrading failure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:39 PM

If you want your head to explode, just read the official Iowa GOP platform. Every nutty conspiracy is touched upon...

http://www.iowagop.org/site/c.ruIWKbMYIvF/b.5647735/k.A17D/RPI_Platform.htm

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:20 PM

If you want your head to explode, just read the official Iowa GOP platform. Every nutty conspiracy is touched upon...

http://www.iowagop.org/site/c.ruIWKbMYIvF/b.5647735/k.A17D/RPI_Platform.htm

Ye gods, they even SHOUT! Are these people for real?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:03 AM

"We support the definition of manure as a natural fertilizer."


That I can support. I am much relieved.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:57 AM

And I support thre definition of the Iowa Platform as manure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:48 PM

"We support the definition of manure as a natural fertilizer."

Actually manure cannot be defined as a natural fertilizer. It is defined as the composted solid waste of animals. It can be used as a natural fertilizer.

Never answer a personal ad of someone who claims to be "intelejent".

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:03 PM

If you read carefully, you will see that the Iowa GOP supports a theocracy, in which the 'law' supports their definition of 'rights' and they define what is 'law'... all very circular and allowing them to do anything THEY wish, as THEY see it, and supported by THEIR interpretation of the Judeo-Christian religion. Doubt it? Just ask....them.

The U.S. Constitution? Oh, it fits right in...if you squint just right and don't read all the parts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:11 PM

>>"Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA - PM
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:39 PM

If you want your head to explode, just read the official Iowa GOP platform. Every nutty conspiracy is touched upon..."<<

I like the way they put quotes around words and phrases they are misusing. It helps sane people keep track of the bullshit.

>>>6.    The only sound basis for sound government and just human relations is "Natural Law".

7.    The United States is a "Sovereign" Nation and we should abide by the "Rule of Law" of this nation only.<<<

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 12:15 PM

In a long and intyersting analysis in the Times David Stickman, who headed the OMB for Reagan, identifies two or three major flaws in our national economic thinking leading to the present catastophic scenarion. The first was Milton Friedman persuadig Nixon to float the dollar, breaking away from the Bretton Woods accord. The second was the mindless belief that deficits don't matter, particularly when they come from tax cuts.

"his debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican PartyÕs embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits donÕt matter if they result from tax cuts.

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administrationÕs hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces Ñ the welfare state and the warfare state Ñ that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget Ñ entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the RepublicansÕ fiscal religion."

"By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too Ñ signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy."

The article is well worth a read by anyone trying to understand how we ended up int he current long-term miasma of overheated deebt, starved revenues, and rotten financial gaming within the economy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 05:58 PM

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:26 PM

Sawzaw.. what has that 45 year old quote got to do with the current situation? And where did you get YOUR copy? And why no attribution?

It has since been demonstrated that it-does-not-work.... unless the businesses who GET it really DO invest & hire. These days they just sit on it and play financial games and give themselves huge bonuses and watch the middle class struggle. It has become nothing but a Republican slogan/mantra to justify other things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:16 PM

"A tax cut was enacted lowering the top marginal rate by 20%.

Gross National Product rose 10% in the first year of the tax cut.

Disposable personal income rose 15% in one year

Federal revenues increased by 57% in three years"

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:54 PM

"the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier"

Show it to me Amos. The numbers you posted yourself showed an increase in the national deficit every year. If it went down there was a surplus. If it went up, there was no surplus.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:23 PM

Interesting stat in todays Washngton Post... We keep hearing how the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire that it will be a job killer because small businesses will be hurt... Problem is that this is more Repub mythology in that the owners of small businesses that make in excess of $250,000 a year amount to just *****2%****** of small businesses... Hmmmmmmmm??? Kinda blows that mythology outta the water...

So, I wonder what the Repubs will do now that that BIGASS LIE has been revealed???

Maybe that if we don't extend the tax cuts to the rich that we will all go blind???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM

Well the bottom bracket will go from 10% to 15%.

A 50% increase on the people that can least afford it.

But that's OK with Bobert. He will roll the bottom bracket under the bus iif necessary to put the hurt on those evil rich folks.

It's only collateral damage to him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 09:45 PM

Hey Bobert:

Is this a BIGASS LIE ??????????

"I Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 09:55 PM

Hey Bobert:

You tried to cover it up but in that same WAPO article it says:

Myth #4 The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:46 AM

Taking out the qualifier "only", we have:

"Bush tax cuts account for about 25 percent of the deficit this year"

So tell me again why we should keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 08:31 AM

Exactly, TIA...

If the tax cuts aren't helping small businesses, as the Repub claim, and they are contributing to the deficit then, duhhhh...

Plus we now understand the rich are so flush with money that they are just letting it sit??? GNP is dependent on money changing hands and if you take $1.8T and hide it under the matress then it isn't in circulation and therefore the GNP has to suffer... There are one shitlaod of people out there without jobs or grossly underemployed who would certainly allow them bucks to circulate... There are also alot of single women out there living in projects and Section 8 housing trying to take care of kids while working in minumum wage jobs... Heck, the minumum wage doesn't even get a family of four within shotting range of the bottom of the poverty line... Those mothers wold certainly help circulate them bucks... But, no... The $1.8T ain't gonna be used that way 'cause the rich thinks it's better to just let the pile of cash collect dust???

Tell me agin why we need to keep funneling cash to the rich???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 09:28 AM

Tell ya what- lets go back to the tax structure that existed during the Eisenhower(Republican before the loonies took over the party) Administration when the economy was REALLY booming.(DO check the tax rates out- may come as a bit of a surprise to the True Believer Reaganites.)

A tax cut means higher family income...and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues

Only one problem- it hasn't worked! Even George I pronounced it to be Voodoo Economics. Its completebullshit, has been SHOWN to be complete bullshit, and yet prople still cling to the fairy tale.

Oh, ye generation of morons....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 10:13 AM

I guess the question is: if you knew that perpetuating a myth might make YOU a few extra billion, how many lies would you tell, and would it be worth it to you to buy most of a political party to keep that myth going?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM

Q: Some of these border towns [in Arizona] that were thought to be susceptible to lawbreaking of illegal immigrants. Crime is actually down. Crime in Phoenix for instance is down significantly over the past couple of years.
KYL: Well, that's a gross generalization.
-- Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 8/01/10


VERSUS

"According to the FBI, the four large U.S. cities (with populations of at least 500,000) with the lowest violent crime rates -- San Diego, Phoenix and the Texas cities of El Paso and Austin -- are all in border states. 'The border is safer now than it's ever been,' [said] U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling."
-- Time Magazine, 7/30/10

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:49 PM

Here is the BIG QUESTION: How did we get to a point where one party thinks that thety can just LIE its way into power??? The entire Republiocan strategy is based on lies... And smears... And riling up some very stupid people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:48 PM

Here is the BIG QUESTION: How did we get to a point where one party thinks that thety can just LIE its way into power??? The entire Republiocan strategy is based on lies... And smears... And riling up some very stupid people...

Because it works. P.T. Barnum, won't you look down over me....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:13 PM

Itr only works because a significant number of the electorate are effing morons.

Enuf to give Tom Jefferson one of his famous migraines.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 11:32 PM

Itr only works because a significant number of the electorate are effing morons.

Why do you think the Republican party has been slicing school funding since 1980? Why was the chief means of enforcement of "No Child Left Behind" .... slicing funding?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:29 AM

New Third Way Economy Poll: Republicans Shedding the Bush Legacy

But Poll Shows Enormous Power of Injecting Bush into the Debate

July 19, 2010 Washington, DC –

Just eighteen months after President Bush left office with the nation's economy in historic freefall, two-thirds of Americans now see congressional Republicans and their economic ideas as new and completely separate from those of the former President, according to a new poll released today by Third Way, a moderate think tank. If in November, voters continue to believe that Republican ideas are new and different from President Bush, the poll shows they could win control of Congress. But the poll also showed a glimmer of light for Democrats, indicating that if they can tie their opponents to Bush's economic ideas, they can win.

According to the survey of 1,100 likely voters (Benenson Strategy Group, June 19-22, 2010), when asked what economic course they thought a Republican Congress would take if they regained the majority, only 25% say "a return to George W. Bush's economic policies." Sixty-five percent say Republicans would promote "a new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies." Even among Democrats (32%) and self-described liberals (34%), only a minority say Republicans would return to Bushanomics.

Further, the poll finds that the Bush legacy is a difference-maker in this election. When given the choice between a candidate who supports generic conservative economic ideas and one "who will stick with President Obama's economic policies," the conservative candidate wins by 34-points. But in a stunning 49-point swing, the Democrats hold a 15-point advantage when the choice is between a candidate who will stick with Obama and one "who will go back to President Bush's economic policies."

"The November elections could completely turn on whether voters believe that Republican ideas are new or a return to the Bush policies," said Jon Cowan, President of Third Way. "Even in this economic environment, Republicans cannot win if they are associated with the economic policies of the former President."

Indeed, on the question of Bush's economic performance on a variety measures, the former President still receives failing grades. Only 14% approve of his managing the federal budget; the same percentage give him high marks on his handling of Wall Street, and 28% on helping the middle class.

The poll finds mixed views about Democrats. President Obama holds a 53-45% favorable rating, and voters overwhelmingly blame former President Bush for the state of today's economy (53-26%). By a 46-32% margin, voters believe that President Obama's economic ideas for the country are better than former President Bush's (among Independents, the margin is 39-30%).

However, Republicans hold a 3-point edge in the generic congressional ballot. Voters are extremely deficit-sensitive right now, and by a 13-point margin say that Republicans are more serious about fiscal responsibility.

Finally, the poll finds that voters strongly believe that the private sector, not government, will lead the nation toward recovery. They also are skeptical about Democrats and the private sector, fingering them as "anti-business."

"The central challenge for Republicans heading into November is to shed the Bush economic legacy, and so far they are doing that," said Cowan. "Democrats have to show they have a plan for private sector-led economic growth, and they must tie Republicans to Bush. There is still time to make that case, but it is running short."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:34 AM

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM

...two-thirds of Americans now see congressional Republicans and their economic ideas as new and completely separate from those of the former President...

Thanks, Sawz- I didn't think that a full two-thirds of the American Electorate were fu$king morons inhabiting a delusional and fact-free world, but I now stand corrected.

God help America.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:39 AM

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

It may be paradoxical, but it sure ain't truth- its complete bullsht & its the fairy-tale that dug the hole the U.S. is in now. That anyone is still pushing it simply shows how deeply divorced from reality they are.

(Or, how craven.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:43 AM

Or, possibly, enmeshed in a torrid swamp of destructive impulses and unresolved neuroses.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:43 AM

P.S. Despite what TurdWay.org's PR has to say, the Clinton Administration was hardly a "progressive" administration. More like moderate Republican.

Or are they talking about Tony Blair?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM

So far, Amos, Bill D, Bobert and Greg F have broke bad on Democrats.

Methinks Democrats are the Democrats' worst enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:50 PM

Not at all- I 'broke bad' on stupidity, ignorance, dissociation and brain death, wch the Tea-baggers & what now passes for the Republican Party have in super-abundance.

Dems are hardly exempt, but would have a lot of catching up to do to equal the other two.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM

YEah, what Greg said. Honestly, Sawz, you should spend more time htinking before putting your keyboard in your mouth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:23 AM

I was htinking today about the Republicans attempting to inflame racism with their plan to repeal the 14th ammendment.

This is not a profile of courage but rather a profile of hypocrisy.

Its a child - not a choice!
Send babies dropped in the USA back!
Its a mexican - not a US baby!

The rich just need a lil more of your help - stop taxing the rich!


In the last 10 years with their tax cuts the wealthy US investment entrepaneurs have sent 33% of US jobs to Asia. They put all their money into Wall St. schemes and hedge funds and virtually nothing into the US auto manufacturers.
Who will say they they will behave differently if the middle class bails them out by extending their Bush tax cuts?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM

In the last 10 years with their tax cuts the wealthy US investment entrepaneurs have sent 33% of US jobs to Asia.

Ah. Our tax breaks trickled down somewhere else. This explains why the gap between our middle-class and our rich grew so much over the last 10 years. Otherwise I'd have to say, based on the growth of that gap, that trickle-down economics is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM

All depends on what it is that is trickling down.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:20 PM

You can squeeze my lemon...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:36 PM

"So far, Amos, Bill D, Bobert and Greg F have broke bad on Democrats.

Methinks Democrats are the Democrats' worst enemy."

And several left-leaning TV show hosts have questioned the current administration's way of dealing with several problems. One of the more common attitudes OF liberal/Democrats ism as Greg said...searching for the TRUTH and 'best' answers...in marked contrast to the current Republican policy of marching in lockstep and arguing/voting against ANY attempt by the Democrats to solve stuff or pass legislation.

Do you, Sawz, think that politics should be about nothing but winning and getting power, as the Republicans currently seem to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 07:56 PM

Yes, Bill, that is exactly what Sawz thinks... He is, after all, one of Eric Hoffer's "true believers" who will march lockstep with whatever company fight song is called up... No room for anything else...

Too bad... But this is what happens when a nation significantly lowers the IQs of its citizenry... Alot like what the Taliban shoots fir, as well... Lockstep compliance with whatever they want you to comply with... That is one thing that the Repubs and the Taliban have in common... They don't want anyone to think except for the Alphas who will do yer thinkin' fir ya'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 10 - 06:39 PM

An insightful little essay on the tenor of the Republican voice as regards Hispanics can be found here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:17 PM

Mark Morford, literary box-cutter for SFGate, writes:

"...On it devolves. How low do you want to go? Nazi skinheads? Black Tea Party inverto-racists? The 57 percent of Republicans who think Obama is a Muslim? Feverish Glenn Beck sycophants loading up the pickup truck with shotguns and Coors Light, on their way to take out an abortion clinic or maybe a Gay Pride parade, but who take the wrong exit and/or drive into a wall because they can't read the GPS?

Comedic horrors thrive, moronism seems to inbreed and fester, and most of it manifests under the banner of a mutant Christian God, or extreme conservatism, or some form of fundamentalist moral outrage that can't exactly be explained but which often makes its most devout adherents appear to be nothing more than frenetic fleas sucking blood from the Great Hound of life. The beast merely scratches and sighs, and keeps right on gnawing the bone of eternity.

Perhaps you stop to ponder, as I occasionally do, the curious fact that you never read about, say, a die-hard Richard Dawkins fanatic going off hinge and orchestrating a marvelous "Burn A Bible, Save A Kitten" protest event. Or perhaps a Unitarian Church minister commanding her flock to load up their Priuses with Ecstasy and rum to go spike the punch at the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing-along. Wouldn't that be fun? Wouldn't that make a powerful counter-statement? Damn right it would.

Where is the liberal outrage? Where are the extreme acts of radical love? Where is the crazed "Daily Show" fan secretly planning to dump 10,000 gallons of Astroglide on Fox News HQ because Jon Stewart appeared in a pot-induced fever dream and ordered them to?

I still await the hippie liberal apocalypse. I still await my fellow progressives gathering at the Lincoln Memorial in calmly organized outrage, armed with Sigg bottles full of Cabernet and copies of the New Yorker, demanding free iPads for the poor and more compound sentences on CNN. Hell, I just came back from that infamous neo-pagan antichrist orgy known as Burning Man, and all I got was this lousy glow stick.

Oh, the hardcore lefty fringe has its violent cretins, to be sure, natty Earth Firsters to slavering PETA blood hurlers, eco-terrorists and freako off-grid cults, but those groups never claim to be a vital part of the Democratic Party. Liberalism does not depend on terrible education rates to survive.

The GOP, on the other hand, sucks hard from the teat of ignorant extremism, splashes gleefully in the shallow mud puddles of Sarah Palin's battered grammar, draws much of its power from the worst the human spectacle has to offer. Simply put, the modern Republican Party would not exist without its army of high school dropouts drunk on Rush Limbaugh and sexual dread. It's not difficult to imagine "Burn a Quran Day" becoming a new Texas state holiday.

What to make of it? After all, the world has always been speckled with rabid clowns, an endless parade of spittle-flecked sociopaths that make us shudder and sigh, many with "Reverend" before their names or "Show" just after it. American culture is rife with worldviews so narrow and poorly educated, you can be quickly convinced we are but an inch from permanent insanity.

Or maybe not. I prefer to think of these fine denizens of dumb as the darker, skankier parts of our individual consciousness, the red flags of the soul. Should we not be grateful they exist? That they are here to remind us to be ever vigilant and wary? Hell yes we should. ..."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/08/notes090810.DTL#ixzz0z5oLReYP

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM

CA files lawsuit against leaders of troubled city AP

LOS ANGELES – The California attorney general's office sued eight current and former officials of the scandal-ridden city of Bell on Wednesday, accusing them of defrauding taxpayers by granting themselves salaries so high they were illegal and a disgrace to public service.

The suit demands the officials, including former City Manager Robert Rizzo, return hundreds of thousands of dollars they were paid to run the small, working-class city where one in six people live in poverty.

It also demands the reduction of bloated pension benefits that were based on the high salaries.

The salary scandal sparked nationwide outrage and calls for cities of all sizes to publicly disclose what employees are paid.

Rizzo's salary was $787,637 a year — nearly double that of President Barack Obama. With benefits, his total annual compensation, according to the Los Angeles Times, came to $1.5 million a year. Bell police Chief Randy Adams, who later resigned, was paid $150,000 more than the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

"You can't just take the public's money and give it to yourself or give it to your friendly employees or members of the city council just because you want to," said Attorney General Jerry Brown, a candidate for governor. "There's a standard and that standard is that the pay must be commensurate with the duty and the work."

Brown called the Bell salaries "enormous and obscene" and not anywhere in line with those paid to officials in most cities of comparable size.

Rizzo's attorney James Spertus said his client believes he did nothing wrong. He was arrested in March with a blood-alcohol level of 0.28,

"His contracts were presented by the City Council and countersigned by the city attorney, and he acted openly and transparently when he interacted with the city," Spertus said, adding the council kept raising Rizzo's pay to retain him.

The Bell case prompted Brown to launch a statewide investigation of public employee salaries. On Wednesday, his office issued a subpoena ordering the small, neighboring city of Vernon to produce its employee compensation records.

Those records "may pertain to possible violations of various state laws and the waste and misuse of public funds," the subpoena stated.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that the former administrator in Vernon, an industrial city with only about 90 residents, was paid more than $1 million a year.

Brown's office and the Los Angeles County district attorney opened investigations after learning Bell had some of the highest-paid officials in the nation. The city of 40,000 also faces a federal probe into whether it violated the civil rights of Hispanics by deliberately targeting their cars for towing to raise revenue.

Along with Rizzo and Adams, those named in the lawsuit were former assistant city manager Angela Spaccia; council members Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal; and former council members Victor Bello and George Cole.

Phone messages left for the council members were not immediately returned.

Rizzo's salary was raised by the council 16 times since 1993, with an average increase of 14 percent a year, according to Brown. In 2005 alone, the council boosted his salary 47 percent. Upon their resignations, they qualified for lifetime pensions worth, by some estimates, more than $50 million.

Spaccia was paid $376,288 a year, and Adams was making $457,000 a year.

Four of Bell's five City Council members were paid nearly $100,000 a year before they took a recent cut. Cities of similar size pay their council members about $5,000 a year.

Bruce Malkenhorst receives $510,000 a year for his tenure as city administrator of Vernon, California (population, 91). Not including health benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:01 AM

Surely someone must be repulsed by this government corruption that is bankrupting our country and is willing to make a comment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM

"...How did we get to this point? The proximate answer lies in the tactics the Bush administration used to push through tax cuts. The deeper answer lies in the radicalization of the Republican Party, its transformation into a movement willing to put the economy and the nation at risk for the sake of partisan victory.

So, about those tax cuts: back in 2001, the Bush administration bundled huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans with much smaller tax cuts for the middle class, then pretended that it was mainly offering tax breaks to ordinary families. Meanwhile, it circumvented Senate rules intended to prevent irresponsible fiscal actions — rules that would have forced it to find spending cuts to offset its $1.3 trillion tax cut — by putting an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, on the whole bill. And the witching hour is now upon us. If Congress doesn't act, the Bush tax cuts will turn into a pumpkin at the end of this year, with tax rates reverting to Clinton-era levels.

In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends.

That's an extraordinary step. Almost everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea, unless the effects are offset by other job-creation programs — and Republicans are blocking those, too. So the G.O.P. is, in effect, threatening to plunge the U.S. economy back into recession unless Democrats pay up.

What kind of political party would engage in that kind of brinksmanship? The answer is the same kind of party that shut down the federal government in 1995 in an attempt to force President Bill Clinton to accept steep cuts in Medicare, and is actively discussing doing the same to Mr. Obama. So, as I said, the deeper explanation of the tax-cut fight is that it's ultimately about a radicalized Republican Party, which accepts no limits on partisanship.

So should Democrats give in?

On the economics, the answer is a clear no. Right now, fears about budget deficits are overblown — but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore deficit concerns. And the G.O.P. plan would add hugely to the deficit — about $700 billion over the next decade — while doing little to help the economy. On any kind of cost-benefit analysis, this is an idea not worth considering.

And, by the way, a compromise solution — temporary tax breaks for the rich — is no better; it would cost less, but it would also do even less for the economy.

On the politics, the answer is also a clear no. Polls show that a majority of Americans are opposed to maintaining tax breaks for the rich. Beyond that, this is no time for Democrats to play it safe: if the midterm election were held today, they would lose badly. They need to highlight their differences with the G.O.P. — and it's hard to think of a better place for them to take a stand than on the issue of big giveaways to Wall Street and corporate C.E.O.'s.

But what's even more important is the principle of the thing. Threats to punish innocent bystanders unless your political rivals give you what you want have no legitimate place in democratic politics. Giving in to such threats would be an economic and political mistake, but more important, it would be morally wrong — and it would encourage more such threats in the future.

It's time for Democrats to take a stand, and say no to G.O.P. blackmail."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:54 PM

"By: Jon Walker Friday September 17, 2010 5:30 am

(A blog post)   

I noticed that earlier this year we were overwhelmed by a wave of anti-deficit grandstanding throughout the Democratic Party while the Catfood Commission was sending up trial balloons about cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age (which is just a sleight-of-hand way of cutting benefits) or cutting the health care benefits for military service personnel.

Interestingly, since we have started the public debate about whether or not to extend Bush's massive, deficit-ballooning tax cuts to millionaires, those same deficit hawks have been very quiet. That, or they have been very noisy about pushing to greatly increase the deficit by demanding Bush's tax cut for millionaires be allowed to continue. Senators such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and 31 House Democrats have squawked about letting those tax cuts for the rich expire as Bush's law had originally intended. Almost all of those 31 Representatives are self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" who pretend to be worried about the deficit even as they fight to greatly increase it.

When it comes to cutting benefits for poor and middle-class seniors, or cutting the pay of our military personnel while forcing our veterans to pay more of their own health care costs — much of which likely resulted from illness due to their service in two long wars — what we hear from Washington elites is the great need for "shared sacrifice" to bring down the deficit. Yet, when debating the idea of allowing taxes on millionaires (and here it might be good to remember that two-thirds of the members of Congress are themselves millionaires) to return to what they were under Bill Clinton, it is all "damn the deficit we can't let the wealthy suffer during this economic downturn!"

It is just a reminder that in Washington talk about "reducing the deficit" is almost always nothing more than code for screwing over regular Americans and almost always completely divorced from any actual concern about the size of the federal debt. It is long past time that the media calls out these "deficit hawks" for the hypocrites they are and explain what their fake deficit grandstanding is really about."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:58 PM

Still nobody cares to comment on the government corruption that is bankrupting the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

The New York Times

According to a survey published in July by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans feel philosophically closer to the Republicans than to the Democrats. Put another way, many moderates see Democrats like Nancy Pelosi as more extreme than Republicans like John Boehner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM

"Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime"

Los Angeles Times September 22, 2010

Eight current and former Bell city leaders were arrested Tuesday on charges of misappropriating more than $5.5 million from the small, working-class community as prosecutors accused them of treating the city's coffers as their personal piggy bank. The charges follow months of nationwide outrage and renewed debate over public employee compensation since The Times reported in July that the city's leaders were among the nation's highest paid municipal officials.

Among those charged was former City Manager Robert Rizzo, who led the way with an annual salary and benefits package of more than $1.5 million. Prosecutors accused him of illegally writing his own employment contracts and steering nearly $1.9 million in unauthorized city loans to himself and others.He was booked into Los Angeles County jail and was being held on $3.2-million bail.

"This, needless to say, is corruption on steroids," said Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley in announcing the charges. Cooley described Rizzo as the "unelected and unaccountable czar" of Bell, accusing him of going to elaborate lengths to keep his salary secret. Prosecutors alleged that Rizzo gave himself huge pay raises without the City Council's approval.

"This was calculated greed and theft accomplished by deceit and secrecy," Cooley said. Rizzo's attorney, James W. Spertus, said the charges came as no surprise and were politically motivated by Cooley, who is running for California attorney general. "The allegations are mistaken," Spertus said. "They are factually untrue in many readily provable ways." Cooley denied that his campaign played any part in the decision to file charges.

At a news conference, Cooley accused City Council members of failing to oversee Rizzo's actions saying that they instead had collected more than $1.2 million in total pay since 2006 for presiding over city agency meetings that never occurred or lasted just a few minutes. Many city residents greeted news of the charges with joy. "Finally the crooks are going to suffer what the city suffered for many years," said Carmen Bella, a longtime Bell activist.

About two dozen Bell residents gathered outside City Hall to celebrate. One man used a bullhorn to broadcast the Queen rock song, "Another One Bites the Dust," while others laughed, cheered and applauded. But at least one resident wondered what would happen to his embattled city. "Who's going to call the shots?" asked Hassan Mourad, 32. "That's the most important thing right now."

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to urge state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to ask a judge to hand over day-to-day management of the city to a court-appointed official.

Last week, Brown filed a lawsuit against the city that accused Bell leaders of secretly plotting to enrich themselves and conceal their lucrative compensation. The suit seeks to remove three City Council members from office and force city officials to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars in back salaries.

The only person named in Brown's suit who was not arrested Tuesday was Bell's former police chief, Randy Adams. Asked why Adams' large salary did not lead to his arrest, Cooley said, "Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime, to illegally obtain those salaries is a crime."

Cooley said Tuesday morning's arrests were without incident, except that district attorney's investigators used a battering ram to enter Mayor Oscar Hernandez's home in Bell when he was slow to open the front door. More Here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:10 AM

Just for the record, the vigilant and obstreperous party of No has again risen to the occasion and blocked the passage of key initiatives :

"the defense authorization bill has about 3,500 other provisions — many of them important changes to the agenda for the Department of Defense.
It's worth reading the full list, but here are a few notable provisions:

Revamping US Military and Foreign Policy

◦No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
◦Report on long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
◦National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran.
Anti-Corruption

◦Standards and certification for private security contractors.
◦Inclusion of bribery in disclosure requirements of the Federal awardee performance and integrity information system.
Environmental Progress

◦Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.

Senators said they will have to eventually pass the bill — it just may be in a lame duck session. The Senate has passed a defense authorization bill for the past 48 years.

"We have to proceed to consider the defense authorization bill, because our military needs it," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said yesterday. "We need it for authorization of critical military equipment for our troops to fight on our behalf. … We've got to take this bill up, it's our national responsibility"

(Washington Independent)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM

Amos,

Perhaps YOU need to mention that Reid brought up the bill with his own added changes, and then WOULD NOT ALLOW debate on them- it was an "all or nothing" vote, with many unrelated points that even the majority of DEMOCRATS did not support.

But telling the WHOLE truth is not somnething you are used to doing, it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM

Well Well Well. What happened to your fair and balanced requirement Amos?

The cloture vote failed, by a count of 56-43. In addition to all 41 Republicans, Sen. Mark Pryor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, currently trailing by 30 points in her re-election in Arkansas, voted no. Reid also voted no.

It's real easy Amos. Dems are the reason the bill can't get passed.

But rather than use logic and facts, you want to cry and suck snot and blame it on somebody else.

And don't use the Borg bullshit straw man false logic. Would the Dems be a bunch of mindless Borgs if they they all voted the same way on something?

As usual there are things in the bill that the Repubs object to and that is what they are voting against.

If the Dems were not such Borgs and changed the things the Repubs don't like, It would pass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

The defense appropriations bills did NOT reach the floor (the filibuster was to prevent that), and the Republicans were thus prevented from putting their 'mom and apple pie' amendments up for a vote -- the amendments not intended to pass, but just to be featured in campaign ads, "Sen. Smithers voted against mom and apple pie" (as a part of a larger, necessary piece of legislation, but we won't tell you that).

Yes, the Democrats were against amending it. That's what the majority party does (see the Bush tax cuts or the Medicare prescription drug provision -- no amendments allowed so that these expensive programs would be paid for). Republicans are the whiniest goddamn bunch of snivelers I've ever seen, especially when what's being done, or proposed, is what they themselves regularly do. So the Party of NO didn't get to say "NO" for fifty time-killing amendments to a bill that the troops need.

Why do the Republicans hate our troops? You know they do -- they just voted against even debating the matter.


Bob

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM

"For the first time since 1952, the Senate failed to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor for consideration. Containing provisions to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the policy banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military, the defense authorization bill would have also given senators the vehicle to consider the DREAM Act, a bill allowing eligible undocumented youth to obtain citizenship if they, either serve in the U.S. armed services or attend an American college. However, Arkansas Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln joined 42 Republicans in "the latest unified Republican effort to block" this year's legislative agenda. Both policies were once backed by strong bipartisan support. Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) once agreed with an overwhelming number of military officials that DADT should be repealed. The DREAM Act similarly enjoyed Republican backing in previous years from GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT) -- who tried to pass it by inserting it into the 2004 budget authorization for the Justice Department -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), Richard Lugar (IN), Collins, and McCain. However, in an election year, these Republicans traded their support for blind obstruction of these policies. The GOP's hollow opposition on the grounds that the DADT repeal jumps the gun on the Pentagon review and the DREAM Act is unrelated to national defense fail to hold up under scrutiny. But the Republicans' use of Senate procedure landed them another victory at the expense of civil rights and popular will. Yesterday's vote is the latest display of Republican commitment to place a stranglehold on Senate business and try to obstruct any legislation providing much-needed aid to the American people from ever being considered.

HOLLOW OPPOSITION: Senate Republicans' chief arguments against the inclusion of the DADT repeal and the DREAM Act in this year's defense authorization bill centered on claims the DADT repeal superseded Pentagon review and that the DREAM Act was wholly irrelevant to national defense and the military. While previously supporting the repeal, McCain blasted Democrats for trying to "jam" it through "without even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be." Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) concurred, insisting that the repeal was "premature" and should "wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report" in December. However, the DADT compromise agreed to by the Senate Armed Services Committee in May explicitly states that while the repeal would be attached to this year's defense authorization bill, implementation would be delayed until Congress has considered the Pentagon's review, and military officials certify that the repeal is "consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruitment and retention." If these requirements are not met, the DADT policy "shall remain in effect." The DREAM Act, Republicans charge, is a "cynical and transparently political" ploy that would "jeopardize a defense bill with an amnesty amendment." Pulling a now-characteristic flip-flop on the DREAM Act, McCain said he would block these "onerous provisions" because it was a "pure political act" by the Democrats, echoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) claim that the DREAM Act "has nothing to do with defense" and makes the defense authorization bill "needlessly controversial." But, according to military experts and the Department of Defense's FY2010-12 Strategic Plan, the DREAM Act's service component is a vital objective to help the military "shape and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force." In fact, according University of California, San Diego's Jorge Mariscal, "the Pentagon helped write the DREAM Act."

THE LATEST REASON FOR NO: While their arguments didn't hold water, Republicans' "unified effort" presented a significant obstacle for senators who wanted to consider the bill. The chance to debate the value of a DADT repeal and the DREAM Act ultimately hung on the two key moderate Republicans from Maine, Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe, who were "thought to be open to repealing the ban." Collins, in fact, was the sole Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted to include the repeal in the defense authorization bill. But instead of offering a vote of support, Collins joined Snowe in offering a procedural explanation as their reason for voting against debate on the policies. After Reid refused McConnell's request to drop the DREAM Act from consideration, Republicans claimed he was with hijacking the amendment process by limiting debate to three amendments -- DADT, the DREAM Act, and secret holds. Despite Reid's assurances that he would consider Republican amendments after the recess, Collins insisted that Reid's restriction on Republican amendments required her to deny consideration of the defense authorization bill. On the Senate floor yesterday, Collins said that while "its only fair" and "right" to "welcome the service of these individuals who are willing and capable of serving their country," she could not proceed to a bill "under a situation that is going to shut down debate and preclude Republican amendments" because "that too is not fair." Snowe similarly denied consideration on the grounds that "the Senate should have the ability to debate more than three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing."

THE PARTY OF NO: Reid's office noted that yesterday's vote wasn't "about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people." Indeed, while 70 percent of Americans support the DREAM Act and 75 percent of Americans support the DADT repeal, the senators representing only 36 percent of the American people filibustered the bill, allowing a minority in the Senate to rebuke the public will. The Republican mantra of "hell no" has certainly proved to be much more than rhetoric, as their "unprecedented obstructionism" in the use of filibusters, delay tactics, and secret holds has effectively derailed Senate compromises and votes on 372 bills. The Republican use of filibusters alone is record-breaking, forcing Democrats to file cloture over 250 times in the last three years. The Senate averaged one filibuster a year until 1970, and only had 130 cloture motions when Democrats were in the minority from 2003 to 2006. Given the pace with which Republicans turn to or threaten a filibuster, they are on pace to "more than triple the old record." Not only have they led to a "completely unprecedented" obstruction of the President's judicial nominees, these procedural tactics have had dire consequences for the American people. This year, it took the Senate four attempts to defeat Republican filibuster to extend unemployed benefits for the long-term unemployed. Because of this obstruction, 2.5 million Americans went without much-needed benefits. Republicans have repeatedly used the filibuster to register their contempt for the unemployed this year, as exemplified by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who told lawmakers begging him to end his single-handed obstruction of unemployment and health benefits, "tough s--t." Last month, the Senate also barely overcame the Republican filibuster of a state aid package "to help states ease their severe budget problems and save the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and other public employees." Even while claiming to be the champions of tax-burdened small businesses, the GOP waged a months-long filibuster against a small-business bill that provided $30 billion in new loans and $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses, which the Senate narrowly defeated earlier this month. The 372 bills awaiting consideration include relief for torture victims, fire sprinklers for college dorms, an investigation into BP's oil spill, and a measure to address catastrophic climate change. But with Republican leaders committed to gridlock and a slate of radical Tea Party candidates potentially joining the Senate, the GOP could maintain a stranglehold on much-needed legislation for the foreseeable future.
"

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

"THE PARTY OF NO: Reid's office noted that yesterday's vote wasn't "about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."
Just for the record: Reid voted no. Arkansas Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln voted no So itf there is a fillibuster, it is a bipartisan filibuster. Has that sunk in yet or is your brain imperviuos to facts?

"For the first time since 1952, the [Democrat controlled] Senate failed to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor for consideration."

A little history lesson:

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd. The filibuster ended when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM

T"oday, House Republicans are unveiling the "Pledge to America" -- a pre-election document styled after 1994's Contract with America -- at a hardware store in Sterling, VA. The plan sorts policy items into "five broad categories" -- jobs, government reform, federal spending, national security, and health care -- and is part of "an effort to respond to the allegation that the GOP is the 'party of no.'" "It's important to show what Republicans are for," said one House Republican involved in the drafting. The document only includes two items regarding social issues -- defending "traditional marriage" and preventing taxpayer funding of abortion in line with the current Hyde amendment -- and Republican aides have "cautioned against comparing the new proposal with the party's original Contract With America." In fact, only incumbent lawmakers were involved in its drafting, and they won't even be signing it. "The new agenda is not a political platform, aides said, but rather an outline of the party's targets in the final weeks of the legislative session," the New York Times reported. If that's the case, then, the document makes it abundantly clear that House Republicans are ready to double down on the failed policies of the Bush administration, on everything from taxes and federal spending to national security, and want to undo some of the strong progressive policies enacted by the current Congress.

REVIVING BUSH'S DEFICITS AND TAX CUTS: First and foremost, the Pledge calls for retaining the entirety of the Bush tax cuts -- rejecting President Obama's plan to save $830 billion by letting the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans expire on schedule -- and cutting overall government spending back to the 2008 level next year, thus literally embracing Bush's tax and spending policies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, cutting the budget back to 2008 levels across-the-board means 21 percent reductions in discretionary programs, including more than $8 billion in cuts to K-12 education. But the cuts don't come close to eliminating the deficit, particularly considering the GOP plans to pass $4 trillion more in tax cuts, plus an additional small business tax cut. Of course, endorsing an across-the-board cut, instead of laying out specific areas of the budget that can be pared back alongside responsible revenue increases, epitomizes the Republican approach to budgeting. In fact, when directly asked, many House Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA), can't name a single program they'd like to cut. And already, some Republicans are saying that the Pledge isn't even radical enough when it comes to cutting spending. "It's not taking us where we ultimately have to go as a country, dealing with entitlements and permanent tax changes," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who has reportedly "advocated for a plan that dealt specifically with Social Security." Notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) -- the Republican budget chief who has released a full plan for privatizing Social Security and Medicare -- was not scheduled to appear at the Pledge unveiling, confirming that many in the Republican leadership are hesitant to publicly tie themselves to his proposals.

REPEALING HEALTH CARE REFORM: The Republican pledge also dedicates an entire section to repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with some of the same solutions that the GOP promoted during the health care reform debate, such as medical malpractice reform (which won't do much to bring down health care costs) and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines (which would lead to a regulatory race to the bottom). However, repealing the ACA will add $143 billion to the deficit over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, as the cost containment measures and revenue increases in the bill also disappear. Interestingly, the Pledge also says that Republican health care reform will prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but without including an individual mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Of course, as Newsweek's Ben Adler explains, "Such a prohibition is economically infeasible without the individual mandate that health-care reform included," as people wouldn't buy health insurance until after they get sick. Forcing insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions also puts House Republicans at odds with conservatives like former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), who has likened the prohibition to automobile insurers being forced to insure already wrecked cars.

BRING ON THE SHUTDOWN: One of the most notorious episodes of the Congress that was sworn in after the original Contract with America was the government shutdown of 1995. For three weeks, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) shuttered the government after Congress was unable to approve a budget. And House Republicans are already saying that they're game for a repeat performance. "If government shuts down, we want you with us," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). "It's going to take some pain for us to do the things that we need to do to right the ship." Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has demanded a "blood oath" from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to include a repeal of health care reform in every appropriations bill next year, even if a government shutdown results. "We must not blink," he said. "If the House says no, it's no." Boehner, for his part, has disavowed the notion, saying, "Our goal is not to shut down the government." "It's absurd," added Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). "That's not our goal at all." But Gingrich himself seems to think that another government shutdown would be productive, even though it means, among other things, that Social Security payments and veterans' benefits are not disbursed. "When we win control of the House and Senate this fall, Stage One of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund any of the radical efforts," Gingrich said. Such talk has earned the GOP a scolding from President Clinton. "You see what happened last time: It didn't work out very well for them," Clinton said."

The Progressive

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:28 PM

"...southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ..."

Yes, Sawzaw...we are quite aware of the history of the Dixiecrats and those days when prejudice overrode both sense and party loyalty. What possible relevance is it to today's issues?

Those days passed, and most of the Dixiecrats either left or were defeated or, in a couple cases, converted to semi-sanity.

What the Republicans are doing now is beyond even asserting a 'principle'. They are just blocking ANYTHING Democrats propose...even stuff they were formerly in favor of... then condemning the Democrats for not getting much done. This is being done with obfuscation, foot-dragging and bald-face lying in order to scare people. It is, simply, the most UN-principled way of acting I have ever seen in Congress in my 50 years of voting. Individuals have acted this way, but an entire PARTY?

It is shameful....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:37 PM

Interesting about the new Republican "Pledge to America".... They released it as a .PDF file, which, if you know where to look, tell you who the author is! (I downloaded it, and it does!)

link here

In this case, by Brian Wild, on John Boehner's staff.

"Mr. Wild, until April of this year, was a registered lobbyist working for some of the most entrenched special interests in Washington. Now he's on House Republican Leader John Boehner's (Ohio) government payroll and responsible for the "Pledge."

Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Wild, as a lobbyist at the Nickels Group, "was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast; more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc." Wild has been in and out of the influence-peddling game — having served on the government payrolls of a number of Republican members of Congress (Pat Toomey, Hank Brown) and even Vice President Dick Cheney. Between government payroll gigs, he served as a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and represented major utilities and mining organizations."

So much for 'grass roots' and 'impartiality'

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:24 PM

..and a little humor to clarify things...Karl Rove meets Plato

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:41 PM

As I understand it:    knowing he did not have the votes, Reid voted "no",   so that he can bring the bill up again.

Talk about an arcane procedure.

Anybody have any confirmation--or the opposite--for this?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:45 AM

most of the Dixiecrats either left or were defeated or, in a couple cases, converted to semi-sanity

You're forgetting that a large a large number of them became Republicans and continue to espouse much the former Dixiecrat ideaology from the cover of their adopted Party!

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:02 AM

"forgetting"?? Not at all.... that is included under 'left' in my post.

Seems like a fine idea. I wish Ben Nelson would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM

"Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only downhill.


I've always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these days one of America's two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party's main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.

Banana republic, here we come.

On Thursday, House Republicans released their "Pledge to America," supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, "Deficits are a terrible thing. Let's make them much bigger." The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration's tax proposals.

True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there's only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That's less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — "except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops." In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.

So what's left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won't cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: "No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress."

The "pledge," then, is nonsense. But isn't that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration's long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it's a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.

And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren't even pretending that their numbers add up.
..."

Krugman, TImes

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:28 PM

"What possible relevance is it to today's issues?"

While searching for what happened in 1952. I found that factiod which is apparently more relevant to todays issues than the happening in 1952 referred to in Amos's post.

Democrats rankle whenever they are reminded of their murderous past and immediately start talking about Republicans.

If what happened is 1952 is relevant, let's have some more details. What happened in 1952 that relates to this topic.

"a large number of them became Republicans" How many? Who were they?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:32 PM

You can search as well as Greg...or I.. can...

Read all about Dixiecrats here

Simply naming parties doesn't convey any real sense of what the political situation was in 1952. "..murderous past..." is just a slogan tossed out. The Democratic party, while never perfect, did more good for the country from the 1930s thru the 1960s than would have been even dreamed of by the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:03 AM

"The Scam On America


With great fanfare, House Republicans unveiled their "Pledge to America" yesterday, a document comprised primarily of attacks on legislation passed under President Obama. "The 45-page booklet explaining the Pledge contains archaic fonts reminiscent of the founding texts," writes the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. "Yet for all the grandiosity, the document they released is small in its ambition." Further investigation of the final release -- once the attacks on an "arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites" and the full-color photographs of the House Republican elite are overlooked -- reveals that the "2010 Republican Agenda" is little more than a re-affirmation of the "Party of No." Yesterday's Progress Report noted that the entire economic platform of the pledge is a return to Bush's tax cuts and spending levels, the failed policies that brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression. The promised combination of regressive tax cuts, deficit reduction, and new spending in the Pledge is "fuzzy Washington math," charges Newsweek's Ben Adler. Energy policy is dispatched in one sentence. The Republican plan on health care is to replace the Affordable Care Act with provisions from the Affordable Care Act. "The Pledge to America should have been called the Scam on America because it does nothing to help Americans," writes the Examiner's Maryann Tobin, "unless of course they are CEOs of big oil companies, drug companies, or Wall Street bankers." Conservatives found the document risible as well. "It is a series of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama," charged right-wing blogger and CNN contributor Erick Erickson. "We're not going to be any different than what we've been," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said at the Pledge's revealing. "It's not even a sequel!" the Daily Show's Jon Stewart responded. "It's like a shot-by-shot remake."


GOP PLEDGE TO LOBBYISTS: As the Huffington Post's Sam Stein revealed yesterday, the GOP's new "Pledge to America" was directed by a staffer named Brian Wild who, until early this year, was a lobbyist at a prominent D.C. firm that lobbied on behalf of corporate giants like Exxon. Moreover, the insurance industry is the leading contributor to Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican who led the effort. "Instead of a pledge to the American people, Congressional Republicans made a pledge to the big special interests to restore the same economic ideas that benefited them at the expense of middle-class families," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer argues. Consistent with its desire to placate lobbyists, the pledge omits any mention of a key Republican mantra: a ban on earmarks. When it comes to energy policy, the GOP leaders ignore public opinion and science, instead promoting the same old ideas flogged by Big Oil lobbyists and other energy interests: more oil drilling ("increase access to domestic energy sources") while disregarding pollution ("oppose attempts to impose a national 'cap and trade' energy tax"). The GOP pledge would also halt clean energy investments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and block new safety, health and environmental rules. "Rather than listening to the American people, the pledge listens to polluter lobbyists," describes Center for American Progress Action Fund senior fellow Daniel J. Weiss.


RETURN TO RADICALISM: After Obama took office, a number of GOP officials and candidates embraced "tentherism," the radical belief that everything from Medicare to Social Security to unemployment insurance to belonging to the United Nations violates the Constitution's Tenth Amendment. Until the "Pledge to America," however, it's been an open question whether the GOP as a whole would embrace this absurd viewpoint, or whether they would leave tenther rhetoric to fringe figures such as Michele Bachmann, Joe Miller or Sharron Angle. The first passage is a pledge to read the Constitution as a tenther document, putting essential programs like Social Security or Medicare on the chopping block. "The constitutional lunatics are now in charge of the GOP's asylum," writes CAP policy analyst Ian Millhiser. Ignoring immigration reform, the Pledge proposes an enforcement-only approach to immigration and appears to endorse and promote Arizona-like immigration policies. Given that 54 percent of all Americans regard the immigration issue as "very important" and that a majority of voters -- across party lines -- support immigration reform, "it's surprising the GOP didn't provide more details," the Wonk Room's Andrea Nill responds.


IGNORING AMERICA: Stripped of pablum, giveaways to lobbyists, and Bush-era ideas, little is left in the "Pledge to America." In fact, the "Republican Agenda" ignores some of the most essential challenges facing the United States. Global warming is nowhere to be found, even though this is the hottest year in recorded history. Even more remarkably, there is no plan for Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no mention of how Republicans plan to deal with either war and no acknowledgment that this year was the deadliest year in Afghanistan. Of the eight points in the plan devoted to national security, over half are devoted to keeping people out of America, indicating that the Republican House leadership simply doesn't know how it wants to engage the world.

The agenda is supposedly the culmination of a project GOP lawmakers launched -- America Speaking Out -- which was designed to give the public a virtual platform to submit ideas and then vote on them. It may not be surprising that the Republicans ignored the highly popular ideas to decriminalize marijuana use, a ballot issue in five states this November. But they also deliberately ignored the most popular "job creation" idea, to "stop the outsourcing of jobs" by eliminating tax breaks for outsourcing companies."

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM

Dick Cheney and many reactionaries of his ilk would destroy the legal advocacy system that has worked in the US for decades. Lawyers need to defend in court the rights of the accused if we are to have a stable democracy. Otherwise we have Cheney's Kangaroo Courts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:04 AM

Every time I ask about those fabled Dixiecrats I get shunted off.

Somebody makes a grand and glorious statement of absolute truth and then cannot support it.

If your read the discussion about the "facts" presented in that Wiki article you will see that the "facts" are incomplete, not supported and contested. It bears the grade of C.

Where is a list of the "large number of them became Republicans and continue to espouse much the former Dixiecrat ideaology"?

Senator Tillman: "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand n*****s in the South before they will learn their place again."

Senator Benjamin Ryan "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman (1847-1918) (D- SC), one of the most despicable men ever to serve in the U.S. Senate and a man who, it can fairly be said, did more to put in place the Jim Crow system in the South than any other single person. As a young man coming of age in the post-War South, Tillman was a leader of the "Red Shirts," a terrorist paramilitary group organized to attack and intimidate Republicans and blacks. In 1876, the Red Shirts' campaign of murder, violence, and fraud led to the defeat of South Carolina's integrated reconstruction Republican government. Arguing that, "The negro must remain subordinated or be exterminated," Tillman openly called for the murder of blacks in order to, "keep the white race at the top of the heap." Tillman was elected South Carolina Governor in 1890, and created South Carolina's first literacy test for voters, as well as promoting various property and educational requirements for voting. While in office, he once pledged to personally "lead a mob in lynching a negro." After all, "the negro," he claimed, was "a fiend in human form." For his services, South Carolina sent him to the U.S. Senate, where he served from 1895 until his death in 1918.

For Tillman, though, it was not enough to be the primary architect of Jim Crow in South Carolina. Tillman spoke far and wide around the South, urging the suppression of blacks. He went to North Carolina 1898 to aide in the violent overthrow of the racially tolerant city government of Wilmington. Responding to an editorial by the mixed-race editor of the Wilmington Record, Tillman taunted, "Why don't you lynch the n****r editor...? Send him to South Carolina, let him publish such offensive stuff, and he will be killed."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:39 PM

Sawz...why are you demanding that someone provide YOU with detailed research in order to make a general point about change in politics?

In Tillman's day, there were racists in every party and 'party lines' were usually drawn along other lines. There was much turmoil as parties attempted to reconcile the purported 'end' of slavery with other issues. Some Southern states, even those led by people with 'Democrat' beside their names, engaged in heinous practices for 100 years after Emancipation....(and yes, some odd bits of it continue today). Politicians join any party they choose, according to 'some' principles, but often just according to expediency to further careers. We see a few changing parties every year.
If we were sensible, we'd have a dozen parties to reflect many different combinations of viewpoints, but in order to have much hope of getting noticed and elected, a politician needs to cram his views in one of the two majors, then seek to bargain for vote on one issue in order to promote another...witness Ben Nelson & Joe Sestak and Olympia Snow...etc...etc...Even Jim Webb voted with the Republicans the other day...and I still can't figure out why.

So, Sawz...although *I* made some of the assertions about Dixiecrats as 'part' of a point about 'politics making strange bedfellows', it is not necessary to spend hours looking up names and typing long screeds just to 'prove' to YOU something that is not a major issue. Some Democrats/Dixiecrats DID change...Robert Byrd being the most notable....and others changed parties....and for your edification here is a small list, which YOU could have found with a 20 second search.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM

To understand the schism between the basic ideologies of Liberal vrs. Conservative, it would be good for those interested to read George Lakoff's books, "Don't Think of an Elephant" and "Moral Politics". This would explain the conversion of the Dixiecrat parties
to the Republican.

Essentially, Republicanism is based on an authoritarian view of people. The Liberal point of view is essentially that of a nurturing or compassionate view of people. The concepts have been at loggerheads for a long time. The authoritarian worldview finds roots in orthodox religions and a military mindset. The Liberal point of view tends toward helping, aiding and protecting the rights of the innocent.

A person can hold both views at the same time whereby they profess ideas one way and act another. Lakoff calls them "biconceptuals".

Unfortunately there are many Dems who think like Repubs today. This is due to religious indoctrination, strict parental upbringing and other factors. This is why the US is embroiled in meaningless "wars" that have no solution or end. Punishing is a big part of the authoritarian viewpoint. Bagram. Guantanamo.

The Repubs don't get it that you can't torture information out of a committed ideologue.
They like punishment.

A punitive approach to governing is disastrous. It leads to tyranny and dictatorships.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM

"Sawz...why are you demanding that someone provide YOU with detailed research in order to make a general point about change in politics?"

Because the Dixiecrat argument is a myth. That's why nobody can come up with any details. You want me to prove your myth?

I found that list previously and it shows members of "The Dixiecrat Party largely dissolved after the 1948 election." Not the "large number" that became Republicans.

And what happened in 1952 that has any bearing on what is happening now?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM

??Yes...it did dissolve after that election...so? Various former 'members' did different things. There was a lot of realignment in the several years following...The point it, the **Republican** party became the major home for right-wing and racist ideology, except for other 'new' parties formed when segregationist ideas weren't welcome among the Dems. (George Wallace, for example) Orval Faubus tried to be a racist from within the Dems, but was soundly put down by LBJ.

And I believe YOU were the one who brought up 1952. I never claimed any particular relevance. I was in 7th grade in 1952, and all *I* remember was the wide belief that Eisenhower was the best choice in the wake of Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 10:18 PM

Because the Dixiecrat argument is a myth.

Yes, Saws, YOURS most assuredly is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:18 PM

The problem that Sawz has here folks is that he just can't bring himself to accept that in terms of being "liberal" or "conservative" that the parties over the years have swapped sides... The Dixiecrats were more like the Tea Party in that while not a party were a strong force within' the Democratic Party of the North and that of the South... The Dixiecrats were the old Jim Corwers... You know, real rednecks... Kinda like alot of the Tea Party folks are today... Rednecks, that is...

Anyway, like the Tea Party they had to be appeased... Or not... And the arrangements then were a little like they are now with splinter groups within parties...

But reality was that these people were purdy extreme reationaries, much like the Tea Partiers of today and because of that they turned more people off than wanted to join them and they died out...

Now to today...

We have the Dixiecrats in the Tea Party... The question is simple and history serves us well here... We will either repeat our own history here and say no to TeaPartyNation or we'll repeat Germany's history in the early 30's when tolerance went out the window...

(Horrors, Bobert... You made refernces to Hitler... Okay it was indirect...)

Well, yeah, folks... I ain't sayin' that Tea Party Nation, if it were in control would round up all the Moslems here in the US but then again, based on what I've heard from many of them of late, I wouldn't bet the farm they wouldn't... Might of fact, if I was a bettin' man, I'd prolly bet the farm that they would...

Deja vu...

Wake up America... We have some serously Taibanish folks livin' right here in the good ol' US o A...

B~

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: ollaimh
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:56 PM

it remains troubling and barely believable the delusional thinking over taking america. and to a limited extent(so far) canada.

reagan cut taxes--presto largest deficits in history up till then, reagan deregulated many financial institutions--presto chicago merchantile exchange scaqndal and essentially a bucket shop, and the junk binds and band failures.

bush cuts taxes(and unlike what was posted the recession didn't start untill the last year of bush so his deficits had nothing to do with the recession) presto new highs in deficits , and bush deregulates many financial industries and presto, the financial meltdown after the big guys have looted the store and left the tax payer to pay the bill.

the leadership of the republican party include people who understand this so one has to assume they want an economic collapse and national banckruptcy.. why?

well crisis offers the opportunity to political extremists and defaulting on its national debt would destroy many countries financial reserves. they seem to think the us will weather the world ecomic storm better than others while the us treasury bonds al over the wolrd become valueless.

however the average joe doesn't think in these long term plans. so why do they buy the obvious noinsense that tax cuts don;t lead to deficits and deregulation doesn't lead to the managers looting the store.

as a canadian i am thinking that american educxation has gotten so poor that most people have no idea how the world works. i recall that many university courses in the us were high school stuff in canada(and we are behind europe).

the rantings of the glenn becks and sarah palins are reminicient of the beginnings of the nazi ideology in the thirties. offering people lovely illusions rather than real solutions.

of course the obama adminstration not reversing the bush tax cuts is also unbelievable.

are you going to wait untill no one in the world will leand america any more money? and then no one will use the american dollar for trade--costing america its hugh profits from invisible trade and in the world financial sector?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:45 PM

Your list was not a list if the "large number" that became Republicans.

"YOU were the one who brought up 1952"

It was from Amos and I would still like to know what happened in 1952 that is relevant.

From: Amos - PM
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM
"For the first time since 1952...

Bobert: Yes I can and do accept the truth when it is supported by facts. All you have to do is present the facts.

Your facts consist of what if scenarios while facts bounce off of you like bullets off of Superman.

It is obvious that you do not have the facts needed to answer the question so you use pejoratives like "Rednecks" and claim anybody that disagrees is "Talibanish" You are the one that uses scare tactics to sway peoples opinions.

How many of the Dixiecrats joined the GOP?
It seems like some people are still confused about this, so let's go over it again.

For 100 years, the Republicans fought for the freedom and equality of blacks. Lincoln was a Republican, and he won the freedom from slavery for blacks. In 1957, Eisenhower sent the U.S. Army to Little Rock to force Democrat Governor Orval Fabus to desegregate the schools.

All of the racist bigots became Democrats after the Civil War because Lincoln was a Republican. For 100 years, Democrats were the ones who lynched blacks and made laws against blacks.

That's why most blacks were Republicans until the Democrats bought their votes [I'll have those n****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.] in 1964.

But even though the blacks switched parties in 1964, most racist bigots did not.

How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?

Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor

In fact, it seems that MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.

Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

And as we all know by now, the LAST admitted former KKK member in Congress was Democrat Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, a recruiter who persuaded people to join the KKK. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So where do we get this myth that "most" of the southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican party after 1964?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

Bingo ollaimh. Dead foockin on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:42 PM

Stringsinger:

Your points are well thought out and rational.

However they stop short of any working model of what Liberals believe in, Socialism.

Every socialist country is a dictatorship so evidently liberalism leads to tyranny and dictatorships too.

Did you mention the Prison El Guayabo? the Gulags? How are the prisons in Hanoi and Pyongyang? Are they punitive?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:02 AM

Daily Beast

    My sources confirm that Holding's investigators, having reconstructed how they believe former Edwards' Senate staffer Andrew Young bankrolled hiding the pregnant Hunter for his boss, took their findings to Washington. Given the national scope and political sensitivity, they determined that the top dogs at the U.S. Justice Department should decide whether to continue targeting the former presidential candidate. By all accounts, including sources close to the case that I spoke with, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's team realized there was enough there to keep the Edwards case active. The Justice Department not only approved the investigation should continue, full steam ahead, but also ordered the latest round of subpoenas.

    The sheer number of subpoenas is a telling clue. According to former Edwards staffers who wish to remain anonymous, there were far fewer than 20 people in the loop about how Edwards funded his Hide Hunter scheme. Furthermore, those in the inner circle of confidants including Chief of Staff Miles Lackey; Jonathan Price who, according the sources, handled all things Rielle; and Nick Baldick and Alexis Barr, who possessed the check-writing ability connected to Edwards' nonprofit groups are believed to have already testified before the grand jury. So these subpoenas seem to indicate that the feds are looking beyond questions surrounding how Hunter got money.

    The next clue comes via a source who is familiar with the inner workings of the case and who has been close to Edwards for years. This person tells me that these newly subpoenaed witnesses are primarily Washington, D.C.-based. That hints at the possibility that prosecutors might be looking past the presidential campaign itself and toward how Edwards' operated his former Senate office and perhaps even to the actions of Edwards' estranged and cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM

Bobert: "We have the Dixiecrats in the Tea Party"

Who are they Bobert? Can you name them or is this another Bobert "fact"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

The Southern Manifesto was a document written in February-March 1956 by legislators in the United States Congress opposed to racial integration in public places. The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Democrats and 2 Republicans) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The document was largely drawn up to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education.

Part of the southern manifesto:
"This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding."

signers:
    * John Sparkman (D)
    * Lister Hill (D-Alabama)
    * William Fulbright (D)
    * John L. McClellan (D)
    * George A. Smathers (D )
    * Spessard Holland (D )
    * Walter F. George (D )
    * Richard B. Russell (D )
    * Allen J. Ellender (D )
    * Russell B. Long (D )
    * James O. Eastland (D )
    * John Stennis (D )
    * Samuel Ervin (D )
    * W. Kerr Scott (D )
    * Strom Thurmond (D )
    * Olin D. Johnston (D )
    * Price Daniel (D )
    * Harry F. Byrd (D)
    * A. Willis Robertson (D )
    * George W. Andrews (D)
    * Frank W. Boykin (D)
    * Carl Elliott (D)
    * George M. Grant (D)
    * George Huddleston, Jr. (D)
    * Robert E. Jones, Jr. (D)
    * Albert Rains (D)
    * Kenneth A. Roberts (D)
    * Armistead Selden (D)
    * Ezekiel C. Gathings (D)
    * Oren Harris (D)
    * Brooks Hays (D)[1]
    * Wilbur D. Mills (D)
    * William F. Norrell (D)
    * James William Trimble (D)
    * Charles Edward Bennett (D)
    * James A. Haley (D)
    * Albert Herlong, Jr. (D)
    * D.R. "Billy" Matthews (D)
    * Paul G. Rogers (D)
    * Robert L. F. Sikes (D)
    * Iris F. Blitch (D)
    * Paul Brown (D)
    * James C. Davis (D)
    * John James Flynt, Jr. (D)
    * Tic Forrester (D)
    * Phil M. Landrum (D)
    * Henderson Lanham (D)
    * J. L. Pilcher (D)
    * Prince H. Preston (D)
    * Carl Vinson (D)
    * Hale Boggs (D)
    * Overton Brooks (D)
    * F. Edward Hebert (D)
    * George S. Long (D)
    * James H. Morrison (D)
    * Otto E. Passman (D)
    * T. Ashton Thompson (D)
    * Edwin E. Willis (D)
    * Thomas G. Abernethy (D)
    * William M. Colmer (D)
    * Frank E. Smith (D)
    * Jamie L. Whitten (D)
    * John Bell Williams (D)
    * Arthur Winstead (D)
    * Hugh Q. Alexander (D)
    * Graham A. Barden (D)
    * Herbert C. Bonner (D)
    * Frank Carlyle (D)
    * Carl Durham (D)
    * Lawrence Fountain (D)
    * Woodrow W. Jones (D)
    * George A. Shuford (D)
    * Robert T. Ashmore (D)
    * W.J. Bryan Dorn (D)
    * John L. McMillan (D)
    * James P. Richards (D)
    * John J. Riley (D)
    * L. Mendel Rivers (D)
    * Jere Cooper (D)
    * Clifford Davis (D)
    * James B. Frazier, Jr. (D)
    * Tom J. Murray (D)
    * Wright Patman (D) [1]
    * John Dowdy (D)
    * Walter Rogers (D)
    * O. C. Fisher (D) [1]
    * Martin Dies, Jr. (D) [1]
    * Edward J. Robeson, Jr. (D)
    * Porter Hardy (D)
    * J. Vaughan Gary (D)
    * Watkins M. Abbitt (D)
    * William M. Tuck (D)
    * Burr Harrison (D)
    * Howard W. Smith (D)
    * William Pat Jennings (D)
    * Joel T. Broyhill (R)
    * Richard Harding Poff (R)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

Yo, SawsAss - 1956? 3what have you got from 1856 or 1756? just about as relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM

"So was Marcus Garvey."


What do you have that is up to date Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM

Greg:

Still looking for that large number.

I only see two so far. Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

I am pretty sure they are dead and do not "continue to espouse much the former Dixiecrat ideology from the cover of their adopted Party!" as you have claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:17 PM

Mark Morford writes:

"...Behold, Sharron Angle, Glenn Beck, Jim DeMint. Behold the endless parade of Tea Party dinkbuttons, Nazis and homophobes and God-fearing yoga haters, oh my.

I sip my wine and sigh. What deeply unhappy lives these people must lead, no? So small and cloistered, panicky and scripted, entirely cut off from anything resembling the hot thrum of raw, sticky, swear-worded life as you and I know it, as they shuffle like chilled meatpacks from air conditioned SUV to stuffy Holiday Inn conference room, threadbare high school auditorium to sparsely attended right-wing nutball Midwestern church, retirement home, cotton-candy fairground.

There they are, lurching around the podium, stroking that baby, trying to rally the troops, working like 10 flavors of desperate hell to mean something to someone, somewhere, knowing full well what they're selling is a show, a sham, as they dance and swagger like a doll on a string.

Compassion. That's what we're talking about here. Empathy. A modicum of understanding. Let us, at the very least, try.

For example. It can't be easy to wake up every day and have to be Sharron Angle, can it? To step in front of live cameras and actually claim that Islamic religious law is taking over some American cities? And to say it with a straight face?

What must it be like to live inside such a tiny, misfiring brain and call yourself the queen of infinite space? It cannot be comfortable in there. It can't feel anything like joy, or fun, or freedom. It's just a million screaming little gnats, fighting over a breadcrumb of significance.

There goes poor little Glenn Beck, launching his Sucking Off America road trip tour (or whatever it's called) for a scattershot crowd of barely 700 very white, very scared, very bewildered people in a Midwestern fairground space that holds 8,000, sweating like a farm animal, bombing like a bad comic, working like a big top huckster to lure in the easily duped.

Do you feel for Glenn Beck? It cannot, after all, be easy, maintaining that bizarre shtick at every twitch and turn. What mark will Glenn leave upon this world? What sort of misshapen legacy? Will it not smell of clumsy punch lines and stillborn fear and liquid cheese left out in the sun?

Every day, a new opportunity for empathy. Look, there's New York Republican gubernatorial candidate and weirdo sad-sack Carl Paladino, no stranger to inflammatory, racist, insane comments, coming out on the same week of brutal attacks on gays in New York -- not to mention a rash of horrible gay teen suicides -- saying how he's "not a homophobic," while in the very same breath saying he doesn't want his kids anywhere near gay people and that gay pride parades are "disgusting," and so on. Oh Carl, you sad old man. Your path is cruel and weird. Here, have a shaved ice.

Paladino might be a clown, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., makes Paladino look like an amateur. Here is DeMint, saying how gay people should be barred from teaching in public schools. Not wretched enough? DeMint added that the ban should also include single women who have sex. That's right. Dear Sen. DeMint: Your mom called. She's having some regrets.

What to make of Ohio's very own Republican (of course) congressional candidate and Tea Party nutbunny Rich Iott, who's been dressing up for years in Nazi Waffen SS outfits to participate in wacky little historical re-enactments? Iott says it's all just innocent fun, all for the love of WWII. Sort of like dressing up as a serial rapist just because you like women, eh, Rich?

IMAGES


View Larger Image
MARK MORFORD
You want the good news, or the bad news? 10.06.10
Forgive me I do not like The Arcade Fire 09.29.10
Desperate brides of the apocalypse 09.22.10
More Mark Morford È
Oh you wacky Tea Party screammonkeys, such a gargantuan truckload of empathy you require. There you go, hating on all the tortured puppies of Missouri. Did you hear? The Humane Society is sponsoring some powerful anti-puppy mill legislation in that fair state, one of the worst in the country for abused animals.

Missouri Tea Partiers are, of course, whining and wailing against the legislation. Can you guess why? If you said, "Because filthy, abusive puppy mills provide much-needed jobs for ethically deficient Americans," congratulations! You're absolutely, sickeningly right.

Don't forget to take a moment, before it's too late, to celebrate the charming lunacy of Christine O'Donnell, anti-masturbation goofnickel and all-around Tea Party hood ornament, before she slides back into total irrelevance. Do you feel empathy for poor Christine? She is trailing by double digits in the polls. She is scrambling for footing up a mountain of dumb.

What's it like to wake up in her shoebox of panicky fairies every morning? What's it like to be a bar of soap in her lukewarm bath? Shudder and sigh and wish her well on her demon-haunted path, that's what I try to do.

And finally, we have one adorable little Albert Mohler, a delightfully confused Southern Baptist leader down in Atlanta, blurting out sort of deliciously naive maxim that real Christians do not, should not, must not engage in that most pagan, godless, creepy, divinely embodied, mystically lovely, sweaty, sticky, ass-up practice known as yoga.

According to Mohler, real Christians know there is no way in flabby, flesh-hating hell that "the body is a vehicle for reaching consciousness with the divine." Too mystical. Too much "creepy" chanting, as Pat Roberston might gurgle. Too many weird gods and ancient ideas that predate Jesus by about, oh, 3,000 years.

Dear Albert: As a yoga teacher for more than a decade, I'm here to tell you: You are absolutely right. Yoga is every inch, stretch and twist completely incongruous with your mutant strain of Christianity. Thank Shiva yours is not the only way to move, breathe, or believe, no?

Besides, yogis are nothing if not aware that consciousness is merely energy, God is in the space between the inhale and the exhale, Jesus loved Mary Magdalene's downward dog, and that you are nothing more or less than a radiant grain of cosmic sand, tiny and wondrous, a perfect manifestation of the divine, despite your glorious slew of shortcomings. Just like Sharron and Glenn, Jim and Richard, et al and ad nauseam.

See? Empathy. It does a yoga body good."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/10/13/notes101310.DTL#ixzz12domPyl0

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: pdq
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

That last post is one of the most hateful piles of puke ever posted to Mudcat, but then consider the source.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:28 PM

Lost your sense of humor, PDQ? Mark Morford's prose is biting, no question, but it is quick-witted and I think much to the point.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:42 PM

Amos is so enamored with rhetoric and prose.

He thinks such horseshit has more importance than actual facts and reality.

Dream away Amos. At least you keep yourself entertained.

Lefties are of course, whining and wailing against the Tea Party.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 05:46 PM

Ain't even half as hateful & pukey as 5 minutes of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Faux News.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:51 PM

On October 6, amid the tidal wave of corporate cash flooding the 2010 campaigns—which could attach a $5 billion price tag to the most expensive midterm election in history—Bill Moyers told Common Cause that money in politics is "the dagger directed at the heart of democracy." He had just warned that "the activist reactionary majority on the Supreme Court...has opened the floodgates for oligarchs and plutocrats to secretly buy our elections and consolidate their hold on the corporate state."

Undocumented workers are so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our economy that even two professional immigrant-bashers, Lou Dobbs and Meg Whitman, have found it difficult to avoid relying on their labor.

What is happening this fall is not just about parties and candidates or television attack ads or a media fantasy of "the grassroots Tea Party movement." We are witnessing an assault on democracy by multinational corporations that, freed by the Citizens United ruling, are out to get the best government money can buy. Who's buying? Billionaire businessmen with a stake in energy, finance and telecommunications policy debates—like Trevor Rees-Jones, Robert Rowling and Jerry Perenchio—are writing checks for as much as $1 million each to Karl Rove's American Crossroads project. What's more, Crossroads GPS, an allied group that's pouring tens of millions into Congressional races, is organized under tax laws that allow Rove to hide the names of donors. But we do know the targets: by early October, the group had spent $14 million on ads attacking senators Barbara Boxer in California and Patty Murray in Washington, as well as a handful of other Democrats in races that could decide which party controls the Senate.

The Crossroads campaign is part of a broader push from corporations to buy not just Congress but a guarantee that there will be fewer challenges to corporate abuses, bankster speculation and free-trade policies that allow multinational corporations to shutter American factories while exploiting the world's poorest workers.

Fronting this corporate campaigning is the US Chamber of Commerce, which, according to the Center for American Progress, collects and deposits money from US-based multinationals and groups from India and Bahrain that ends up "in the same 501(c)(6) account the Chamber is using to run an unprecedented $75 million attack campaign, mostly against Democrats." The Chamber joins Crossroads and other Republican-friendly groups in refusing to reveal its sources of funding.

Reformers are under attack from Rove's apparatchiks for demanding enactment of the DISCLOSE Act, which Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer says "would carry forward a forty-year-old principle of campaign finance laws that campaign contributions and expenditures should be disclosed." That's a start, but transparency is not enough. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a target of the Chamber's attack ads, is right when he says the central issue is corporate power. Democrats should pick up on Feingold's theme, in this campaign and in the next Congress. They must push responses ranging from public funding of campaigns to amending the Constitution so that it guarantees that legislatures can regulate corporate campaigning. More is at stake than House and Senate seats. "Democracy in America has been a series of narrow escapes, and we may be running out of luck," warns Moyers. If the dagger of corporate money pierces the heart of democracy this year, we may not have the strength to pull it out afterward. The 2010 election is a watershed for America. It is money versus democracy. We dare not let the money win.


(Editors of The Nation)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:12 PM

"It is money versus democracy. We dare not let the money win."


Too late- Obama and the Dems already bought the 2008 election.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:22 PM

"which could attach a $5 billion price tag to the most expensive midterm election in history"

If nobody can prove it, why not claim $50 billion?

Sources might not be known but the amounts spent on what can be tracked and they are being tracked.

EG spending for Republican candidates and Democrat candidates can be separated and tracked.

Funny thing, after the evil corporations fuck everybody out of their money, how are they going to sell anything?

According to Obama all spending is stimulus anyway so let those rich assholes sitting on that $17 trillion Bobert warbles about, spend some of it so it can trickle down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:29 PM

Excuuuse me, that's $1.7 trillion that Bobert warbles about,

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: kendall
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM

Bush's two illegal wars have cost us 1.1 trillion dollars so far and some of you bitch about welfare cheats and health care for the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:43 PM

In a recent radio interview, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) made the seemingly-innocuous statement that the federal highway system, as well as federal laws ensuring safe drugs and safe airplanes, are constitutional. Nevertheless, Shea-Porter is now under attack by ÒtentherÓ activists who believe that virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional:

Author and historian David Barton, the president of WallBbuilders, [sic] says Shea-PorterÕs comments reflect her view that Washington government should run everything. He notes that both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say anything that is not explicitly covered in the Constitution belongs to the states and to the people.

ÒAll of those issues belong to the states and the people. Healthcare is not a federal issue. It is a state and people issue Ñ the same with transportation. The Constitution does say that the federal government can take care of what are called the post roads Ñ those on which the mail travels Ñ but outside of that, states are responsible for their own highways, their own roads, their own county, local, state roads,Ó he notes. ÒAnd her comment about, ÔWell, the Constitution doesnÕt cover drug use and drug abuseÕ Ñ yes it does, and that is under the criminal justice issues that belong to the states.Ó

As ThinkProgress previously reported, conservatives are increasingly enraptured with tentherism, which claims that landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the VA health system and the G.I. Bill are violations of the 10th Amendment Ñ and many leading conservative officials are determined to impose the tentherism on the country. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is a tenther, as are Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas embraces tenther claims that the federal minimum wage and the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters, among other things, are unconstitutional.

Indeed, even federal highways opponent Barton is no small figure in conservative politics; Barton is one of six ÒexpertsÓ tasked with rewriting TexasÕ public school textbooks to teach a right-wing alternative history to Texan children. Apparently, Barton and his fellow tenthers also want to rewrite the Constitution.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/tenther-highway/

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM

How much does Obama's illegal war cost?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:47 PM

Obama's illegal war?????

Gosh, Sawz, I thought YOUR guy started that war, no?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:12 AM

Some hopeful Afghan war critics blame the Pentagon, GOP war hawks, defense contractors, and oil interests, for arm twisting Obama to escalate. This helps to rationalize their bitter disappointment at the president's disastrous escalation decision. The truth though is that Afghanistan is the war that Obama always wanted.


Huffpo:

Only the most hopelessly naïve, star struck or a true believer could have ever thought that President Obama would not dump massive numbers of fresh troops into Afghanistan the first chance he got. He said or strongly inferred that escalation of the Afghan war was in his cards on two occasions as a presidential candidate, and once before he became a presidential candidate. He strongly inferred he'd fight in Afghanistan in his anti-Iraq war, Bush bashing speech at Chicago's Federal Plaza on October 2, 2002. The speech burnished his credentials as a war opponent and eventually established him as a political comer on the national scene.

Sporting a peace button on his right suit jacket lapel, Obama went on the attack. He blasted the war, called it a drain on American resources, and a foreign policy nightmare. He repeatedly called it a dumb war. The "dumb war" characterization implied that there were wars that were worth waging. Earlier in the speech, he made it clear that he was not a reflexive opponent of all wars. The US was simply fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place. He demanded that Bush fight an all out, no holds barred war against terrorism. Though he did not mention Afghanistan directly, in the speech it didn't take much to connect the terrorism to Afghanistan dots.

Six months after he announced his presidential candidacy, Obama was still among the pack of Democratic presidential candidates. But in a speech in August 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars he left no doubt that Afghanistan would be his number one target for attack if he was elected.

He made an impassioned promise to wage what he dubbed the war that had to be won. He spelled out in minute detail his plan of attack. It was virtually identical to the plan he laid out in his West Point speech. He vowed to drastically increase troop strength, ramp up spending on an array of military related programs such as mobile special forces, pacification teams, intelligence operations, and to beef up military aid to Pakistan. He vowed to take the war to the Taliban in Northwest Pakistan. Eleven months after his Wilson Center speech, Obama was still only the "presumptive" Democratic presidential candidate. Yet, in a CBS Face the Nation interview, he promised to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. These are the exact same words that he used to sell escalation in interviews in the build-up to his West Point speech.

In his pre-presidential speeches, interviews and comments on the war he massaged his war plan. He promised to set a timetable for eventual withdrawal, get out of Iraq, corral America´s European and Middle East allies in a partnership to wipe out the terrorists and their mass destructive weapons, end corruption, hold free elections, bolster Afghan security forces, boost intelligence gathering and monitoring, beef up afghan security forces, and insure a stable government in Afghanistan. This again is virtually identical in every detail to his West Point escalation speech. Two years after he spelled out the plan, the US had shelled out more than $200 billion dollars and suffered nearly 1,000 dead. Not one of these goals has been met.

By then however, Obama had hardened on the military option, and pledged that he'd redeploy troops as fast as he could from Iraq to Afghanistan. Though he tossed out the figure of two brigades as the number of troops he planned to send, he hinted this was not fixed, and the number of troops might go much higher.

Obama has never cited Pentagon pressure as his reason for upping the military ante in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has certainly hammered hard for troop escalation. But the massive troop increase is clearly Obama's call. A call he made and firmly decided on long before he ever got to the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:15 AM

Well, that's a nice stew of mostly opinion. But the fact remains that the pursuit of war in Afghanistan was initiated under Bush and his cronies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:24 AM

",,,Voters don't seem to be paying much attention to the war in Afghanistan and President Obama certainly isn't making it an issue. His administration is doubling down on the fight against the Taliban and showing mixed results. That may not sound like much, but even mixed results are an improvement over the utterly bleak situation of several months ago.

President George W. Bush shortchanged the Afghan fight for seven years. We continue to wonder whether, at this late date, the United States can achieve even minimal success against the Taliban and their allies. The cost of the war is still rising. Nearly 600 coalition forces, including 400 Americans, have been killed there this year. Mr. Obama and his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, appear, finally, to be putting in place the pieces of a more coherent plan.

With 30,000 more American troops in Afghanistan, attacks against insurgents on both sides of the border have intensified. The Times reported on Thursday that American and Afghan troops have forced many Taliban fighters to flee Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the Taliban's spiritual base.

Marja, where the first test of the new counterinsurgency strategy faltered badly last February, is somewhat better governed and more secure. To improve security in areas across the country without sufficient NATO and Afghan forces, General Petraeus has spearheaded an effort to create local police units to protect their villages against the Taliban.

According to reports in The Times, President Hamid Karzai's government, with Washington's support, is also holding exploratory peace talks with high-level Taliban commanders. NATO has flown some of the commanders from their sanctuaries in Pakistan or cleared roads so they could make their way safely to Kabul...."


Brooks, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:35 AM

"Latinos for Reform is not a grass-roots Latino immigration-reform group. It is the operation of a conservative Republican, Robert DePosada, a former director of Hispanic affairs for the Republican National Committee. While many Latinos are bitterly and rightly disappointed in President Obama's failure to win immigration reform, the ad's prescription — "Democratic leaders must pay for their broken promises and betrayals" — has it upside-down and backward.

Every time Congress has come close to passing bipartisan immigration reform, lock-step Republicans have destroyed any hope of passage. Democratic cowardice and ineptitude haven't helped, but when a bill has come close to a vote, Republican-led filibusters killed it.

The Republicans' contempt for Hispanic voters, of which this voter suppression is Exhibit A, is mirrored in the way their party exploits immigration rather than fixes it. Many immigrants and citizens yearn for reform. But if most of the Republicans running this fall have their way, we'll never get it. Good reason to get out and vote. " (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:40 PM

There are a number of Republican Senators who earn money from China by supporting the agenda and tax break policy of outsourcing American jobs to CHina. They are only gettinga few hundreds of thousands of dollars for their efforts. Americans who own the enterprises who earn more by outsourcing are prospering. So if Americans benefit, what is wrong with outsourcing?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:27 AM

"the fact remains that the pursuit of war in Afghanistan was initiated under Bush and his cronies. "

Yes that is a fact Amos with your compulsive rhetorical flourishes. Remember Bidens flourishes?

But the fact still remains that Obama is and always was for the war in Afghanistan and all of your diversionary verbiage does not change that fact.

What did you do with your anti-war protestor hat Amos? Is that reserved for Republican war criminals only?


Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan
        
Washington Post August 2, 2007

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Obama's warning to Musharraf drew sharp criticism from several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, but not from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM

JFK:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:06 PM

That would be wonderful indeed, if it worked. Kennedy was wrong about the mechanism, because reducing taxes in large corporations and high-wealth idividual income taxes does NOT produce new jobs.

It produces bonuses, to people already wealthy, and extra vacation homes, and other furbelows, but only marginally does it add to the ranks of jobs in the marketplace.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:58 AM

Sawz:

Bush started a war and when it was in full bore, handed it over to Obama. Oh, wait. Bush started TWO wars, and when they were in full bore he handed both of them over to Obama.

Oh, plus a major depression of the magnitude not seen here since the 30's.

Obama turned the war in Iraq around, winding it down. He also turned the economy around in spite of obstreperous naysaying from your side of the house.

Afghanistan is going to be wound up in due course, one way or the other. But blaming Obama for its existence is really lopsided thinking, amigo.

Give it a break with your news posts from three years ago.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:22 PM

"Obama turned the war in Iraq around, winding it down. "

He followed the plan that Bush had already put in place, contrary to his broken campaign promise to bring them home first thing. Bush turned the war around with the surge that Obama vehemently opposed. He said it would not work and now you want to give him credit for the surge that he opposed.

Obama campaigned for the job, said he could do the job and asked for the job. He took the wars on himself. Nobody forced them on him as you illogically claim.

Like wise with your hyperbole about a "a major depression". There was no major depression, Not even a minor depression or any depression at all. It was a recession. Do you know the difference or do you just like to spout propaganda?

Recessions end. There was a recession in place when Bush took office. It ended. I don't hear your wailing about Clinton handing it to Bush. I don't hear your praise for Bush for turning it around.

Furthermore he said he was always for the war in Afghanistan. He said it was necessary and had to be won.

With your logical fallacy rhetoric, you try make it look like Obama was against the war in Afghanistan but it was thrust on him.

Now that he is the Commander in chief you protect him instead of attacking him for doing the same things Bush did.

You claim Bush is a war criminal for doing the same things Obama is doing.

How can a human being be so ass backwards in their thinking?

And I will post anything I want from any time I want, Mr boss man. Sorry it does not match up with your invented facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:24 PM

From the editors at the Times:

"Shrill political attacks have saturated the airwaves for months, but behind them is the real problem of this demoralizing election: the dark flow of dollars, often secretly provided by donors with very special interests.

The amount is staggering: Nearly $4 billion is likely to be spent once the final figures are in, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, far more than in the 2006 midterms, which cost $2.85 billion. It could even eclipse the $4.14 billion spent in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Much of this is a direct creation of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which has cut away nearly all campaign finance restrictions.

The court's 2007 decision in Wisconsin Right-to-Life gave corporations and unions the right to run advocacy ads in the last 60 days of a campaign — as long as they did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate. This year's Citizens United decision effectively ended even that last restriction, and pulled away all limits on corporate spending in campaigns.

Building on those decisions, political operatives — mainly Republicans — decided they could collect unlimited amounts of money through independent, tax- exempt organizations known as 501(c) groups, without revealing the source of the donations.

By offering anonymity and no limits, these groups (with gauzily apolitical names, like American Future Fund and American Action Network) have been able to raise and spend extraordinary sums. In the 2006 midterms, outside groups not affiliated with political parties spent $51.6 million; so far this year, such groups have spent $280 million. About 60 percent of that spending is from undisclosed donors, most of which has benefited Republicans. Democratic candidates raised huge amounts, but the sources for most of it were disclosed.

Combining both traditional and outside money, Republicans have slightly outraised Democrats, $1.64 billion to $1.59 billion, but there is more to be tallied.

While large secret donations have been legalized, it is not clear that the 501(c) groups spending the money on barrages of attack ads are playing by the last, threadbare rules. The tax code requires that these groups not be "primarily engaged" in political advocacy, but neither the Internal Revenue Service nor the Federal Election Commission has made any apparent effort to investigate what other purpose they might have. Some groups have suggested they would begin nonpolitical activities — after the election.

What is clear is that the new world of unlimited spending, both open and secret, confers huge benefits on wealthy individuals, corporations and unions. In a striking example, reported by ABC News last week, Terry Forcht, a prominent Kentucky banker and nursing home executive, helped pay for a series of attack ads against Attorney General Jack Conway, the Democratic Senate candidate. Mr. Conway is prosecuting one of Mr. Forcht's nursing homes for allegedly covering up sexual abuse.

Mr. Forcht has directly raised at least $21,000 for Mr. Conway's Republican opponent, Rand Paul. He serves as the banker for American Crossroads, the shadowy group of nonprofits organized by Karl Rove that has spent nearly $30 million to defeat Democrats and more than $1 million to defeat Mr. Conway. "

---

Sawz: If you cannot see the difference between starting wars and trying to end them, I feel sorry for you, man.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

Discussion of political financing and the sources thereof on a local (Seattle) radio station this morning:

Out-of-state political groups (characterizing themselves as "educational") have spent 26 times as much on the campaign to elect Dino Rossi, Republican candidate, to the Senate, than incumbent Senator Patty Murray (Democrat) has had available to her, despite an outpouring of contributions from a large number of working stiffs and other private citizens—such as myself.

A campaign chest 26 times as large as Patty Murray's.

And the content of these supposedly "educational" television commercials consists almost entirely of spurious attacks on Murray's record, and outright falsehoods.

Murray's backers fielded an ad exposing Rossi's source of financing, and Rossi countered by accusing Murray of "negative campaigning"—after he's been lying about her record for months! Sheer GALL!!

Dino Rossi ran twice before, for State Governor, against Christine Gregoire. He lost both attempts by a narrow margin both times despite his extremely negative and downright libelous campaigns against Gregoire (same as he's doing in trying to defeat Murray). But being a political campaign, libel laws don't seem to apply.

Thomas Jefferson said that the future of Democracy depends on a well-informed electorate. The Republicans are hell-bent on making certain that the electorate is anything but well informed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:38 PM

Once upon a time in a faraway galaxy, there were Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower. These men were of a financially conservative timber. They also tended to believe in the power of state and local government to create and administer law and regulation, and conceived the Federal entity as a rather unwieldy and wasteful structure which should be primarily limited to interstate law and commerce, and to making war and peace.

From the time of the Civil War until the 50s, the Republican Party was also involved with not only states' rights issues, but oddly enough, civil liberty concerns. These were the days of the Democratic Solid South, when the Democratic Party often stood for power for the laboring poor, except when it came to blacks. Republicans often stood up for voter's right is those early days, as well they should, considering Abraham Lincoln was a founding member of the party.

The shift began with the imposition, by Kennedy and Johnson, of enforced integration in schools and government. This dictation of national will over local power stood in contradiction to Republican principle, but meshed oddly with Republican Lincolnite tradition, and a choice had to be made. In conjunction with this, opposition to the developing conflict in Vietnam created a rallying point for the World War 2 generation. I watched my parents, lifelong Democrats and working people, convert to the Republican Party as this trend solidified.

Ronald Reagan was the ultimate expression of this newly emerging Republican Party, a reaction to years of what was seen as over-regulation of trade, the environment, and business, and a lack of resolve in using American clout to influence world events. More than ever, it was a return to "old, proven values" and a supposed literal interpretation of the Constitution. The first stirring of what eventually became the "Christian Right" was also seen, and the early emergence of the radio demagogues like Rush Limbaugh who successfully wedded anger with a selected number of the grand old party's traditional principles.

Now we have reached another plateau, primarily due to 2 things: The passage of legislation which allows unlimited and unidentified contribution to political campaigning, coupled with the penultimate importance of advertising as a tool for electing candidates. The congress will be re-districted after this election, and work will continue that was begun by Tom Delay to realign electoral areas to insure continued Republican dominance.

Most of us are giving away our freedom, while the rest are busy buying and selling it. Today, men like Eisenhower, principled men who followed a centrist path, would be shouted down by the likes of the Palinites as weak on liberalism. And make no mistake...the driving force in tomorrow's election is not anger, although, truly, many voters should be angry and will vote in anger...the driving force is MONEY, and it is the one force which my country appears to be helpless to defeat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:47 PM

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D Eisenhower

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:48 PM

which gave corporations and unions the right to run advocacy ads in the last 60 days of a campaign.

And the unions are spending as much or more.

Union campaign spending blows hole in arguments Dems have been making against Chamber & Supreme Ct

ASCME Union is "Big Dog" in 2010 Campaign Spending

10.22.10

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union has emerged as the largest outside spender of the 2010 campaign season, doling out $87.5 million to help elect Democratic candidates, the Wall Street Journal reports.

"We're the big dog," Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations, told the WSJ. "But we don't like to brag."

Later in the same article, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, declared: "We're spending big. And we're damn happy it's big. And our members are damn happy it's big-it's their money."

The latest revelations blow a hole in several arguments the White House and their liberal allies have been making over the past year.

For all of President Obama's attacks on the Chamber of Commerce for its political involvement, it turns out that AFSCME has been spending more. And for all of the complaints about the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision paving the way for more corporate influence, it turns out s that three of the top five spenders during this cycle are unions -- the others being the Service Employees International Union and the National Education Association. And as the article notes, Citizens' United made it easier for the unions to spend money on elections.

Apparently without a sense of irony House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ramped up the rhetoric against the Chamber of Commerce, telling MSNBC, "They give new meaning to the term 'Buy American'- they want to buy these elections." She went on to say that if they win it would mean America was "a plutocracy and oligarchy" and that -Whatever these few wealthy, secret, unlimited sources of money are can control our entire agenda."

Of course, expenditures by the public sector unions are okay, because they're only trying to elect members who will keep funneling federal tax dollars to projects that increase their membership, allowing them to spend more on Democrats in future elections.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:55 PM

You're talking about the organizations who Choose to Disclose contributions, Saw. Tip of the iceberg. There is no longer any legal requirement to disclose funds sourcing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:01 PM

LEJ

YOU are ignoring the fact that the SPENDING IS required to be reported- and that those reports show that the UNIONS are buying the election, NOT others.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:10 PM

Do some independent study Bruce. You won't get all the answers from Limbaugh, just the ones you like. The above mentioned groups...Chamber of Commerce and AFSCME, are compelled to report sourcing and contributions as class 527 donors. The recent law change enabled the creation of 501(c) organizations which are not obligated to reveal funds sourcing. They are obligated to reveal spending, but what the hell does that do when an organization named Americans for Reasonable Spending contributes 25 million to a Senate campaign? How do you know the money doesn't come from China? Or from Halliburton? or Ceiba Geigy? You don't.

"The groups are structured as a tax-exempt "social welfare" 501(c)(4) organizations. As part of its tax exempt status, the organizations are allowed to both raise unlimited amounts of money and keep the names and organizations of their contributors secret – an allowance that facilitates groups of this type to raise considerably more money than standard so-called 527 groups which have to report their donors.' ...from the CNN Blog.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM

So, AS I SAID the spending that they do IS reported- and the amount they spend IS REPORTED.


That is what I said, and you have confirmed it.

As for the source of funds, I note you ignore the foreign contributions to those unions that are putting large amounts into this election ( after getting large amounts FROM Obama). Seems like they were not so bad off as Obama said, when he paid them off for their support in the last election, since they have the money to buy this one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:30 PM

Blogger Jobsdanger offers this:

Monday, October 25, 2010
8 Lies Republicans Want Us To Believe

"During this election campaign the American public has been inundated with lies from the Republican Party.   Some of these lies have been told and repeated for so long that they have assumed the proportions of myth, and are accepted by a great many Americans.   But they are still just Republican lies.

I have been trying to attack these lies one at a time, and have written several posts about them.   But Dave Johnson over at Campaign for America's Future has combined them into one very good post.   He cuts through all the BS and exposes these mythic lies, and then tells the truth about them.   Here are those 8 lies:



1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budgetreduced that to $1.29 trillion.
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.


Don't believe the lies being told by Republicans.   They just want to return to power, and they'll say anything to do that. "

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:45 PM

Blogger Amos said this:

Reagan eradicated Glass Steagall.

I am bringing the truth. America's oil has been cut off.

plus a major depression of the magnitude not seen here since the 30's.

"Obama turned the war in Iraq around, winding it down. "

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 07:15 PM

It should be obvious to most by now that the GOP has embraced extremist tactics and given up on so-called moderate approaches. McConnell wants to make Obama a one-term president and the others want to shut the government down to make political points.

The Greedy Old Party is defending corporate America over making life better for American citizens. They would like to have tax cuts for the wealthy (over a trillion dollars) and hide behind the fear of a deficit which is really hypocritical because under a Republican Administration as Bush showed us, the deficit will increase. Clinton brought it down.
Bush repealed that.

This is an unworkable strategy for the Republicans. The scenario will emanate in the Tea Partiers eventually turning against Republicans (if we assume that the Tea Partiers really are the Americans they say they are). "I'm mad as hell" could equally be applied to Republicans as the US economy sinks lower into unemployment and the economy crashes (which it will if we continue along the lines that the Republicans want).

What we need is a WPA or a CCC to put people to work building infrastructure and tax and mortgage relief for underwater homes. Republicans would oppose this. They would call it "socialist" without a clue as to what socialism really is. FDR was not a socialist but the name is used as a smear tactic for political gain.

Don't count on Republicans to curb expenditures incurred by the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex either. They are too tied in to these corporate leaches.

Over the long haul, though, the Republican agenda is not workable and when things get really bad (which they will if Republicans have their way), the public will be forced into waking up and smelling the bread lines.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM

While the Koch brothers Ñ each worth over $21.5 billion Ñ have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed. ThinkProgress has obtained a memo outlining the details of the last Koch gathering held in June of this year. The memo, along with an attendee list of about 210 people, shows the titans of industry Ñ from health insurance companies, oil executives, Wall Street investors, and real estate tycoons Ñ working together with conservative journalists and Republican operatives to plan the 2010 election, as well as ongoing conservative efforts through 2012. According to the memo, David Chavern, the number two at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Fox News hate-talker Glenn Beck also met with these representatives of the corporate elite. In an election season with the most undisclosed secret corporate giving since the Watergate-era, the memo sheds light on the symbiotic relationship between extremely profitable, multi-billion dollar corporations and much of the conservative infrastructure. The memo describes the prospective corporate donors as "investors," and it makes clear that many of the Republican operatives managing shadowy, undisclosed fronts running attack ads against Democrats were involved in the Koch's election-planning event:

Ð Corporate "investors" at the Koch meeting included businesses with a strong profit motive in rolling back President Obama's enacted reforms. Several companies impacted by health reform, including Allan Hubbard of A & E Industries, a manufacturer of medical devices and Judson Green, a board member of health insurance conglomerate Aon, were present at the meeting.

Other businessmen at the meeting, like Omaha Burger King franchiser Mike Simmonds, are owners of fast food stores which have fought efforts to provide health insurance to their employees. Many corporate attendees of the meeting represent the financial industry impacted by Wall Street reform. For instance, attendee Bill Cooper is the CEO of TCF Financial, a corporation involved in the mortgage banking industry. Cooper recently filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wall Street reform. Other financial industry players in the meeting hail from firms ranging from Bank of America, JLM Investment, Allied Capital Corp, AMG National Trust, the Blackstone Group and Citadel Investment. Annie Dickerson, a representative of Paul Singer, a powerful hedge fund manager who also gives tens of millions to Republican causes, was present.

In addition, Koch Industries itself has a hedge fund and other financial derivative products in its portfolio of interests, which include oil pipelines, coal shipping, asphalt, refineries, consumer goods, timber, ranching, and chemicals....


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 10:45 PM

"While the Koch brothers each worth over $21.5 billion have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed."

First of all Amos, according to Forbes, they are worth $17.5 Bil each, the same as the guy that started Google and less than Mike Bloomberg so somebody doesn't know what they are talking about there.

How many people do the Koch brothers employ Amos? What do they produce? What do they add to the GNP? How many dollars do they and their employees pay in taxes?

How much is the Wall street fatcat George Soros worth Amos? How many people does he employ? What does he produce and what does he contribute to the GNP? What is his agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 11:22 AM

Sawz:

Sorry, I didn't write that piece--it came from the Times, and I forgot to add the attribution. Don't get all silly on me, now.

BTW, it appears that the Repub gang are resorting to massive abuse of Twitter, creating fraudulent accounts and trying to make it appear public support is occurring when it is not.

Full story here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:07 PM

"Sorry, I didn't write that piece--it came from the Times, and I forgot to add the attribution."

gee, if that had been ME, there would have been multiple condemnations and snarky comments.

I wonder about the double standard....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM

"Don't get all silly on me, now."

Ok I won't get silly.

But I would still like to know what the beloved Soros does for the economy VS the "evil" Kochs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:27 PM

New York Times: Democrats Backing Fake Tea Party Candidates

Increasingly desperate and fearful of a GOP takeover of Congress, the Democratic Party is secretly supporting fake tea party and other third-party candidates in the hopes of diverting votes from Republican contenders.

The stunning conclusion was made in a page one New York Times story headlined "Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes" – a report by correspondent Jim Rutenberg and published in Saturday editions of the paper.

The Times reported: "The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support."

"It is one of the dirtiest moves," Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told the Times. "It's not as though the Democrats are playing to compete against the third party - they're helping to build the third party up to make those votes not count."

The Times detailed numerous races across the U.S. where a "Tea Party" candidate has been working to siphon votes from the Republican candidate. In a close race this third party effort could throw the election to the Democrat.

Arguably, the most serious effort is taking place in Nevada where the Times says supporters of Harry Reid are backing a "Tea Party" candidate named Scott Ashjian.

harry,reid,scott,ashjian,democrats,tea,party,dirty,tricks,new,york,times,bono,siphon,votesThe Times says: "In Nevada, conservative radio listeners have heard an advertisement promoting the Senate campaign of a "Tea Party of Nevada" candidate, Scott Ashjian. The ads criticize Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee and favored candidate of the actual Tea Party movement in the race against Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader. "

The paper claims that unions, casinos and mining companies backing Reid are financing Ashjian to undermine Angle's campaign.

The Times examined several key races they indicated this stealth third party ploy was underway, including:

California: Democratic Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet has paid for an automated recording that calls Republican voters and purports to be from a registered GOP voter. The unidentified voter reveals she is voting for Bill Lussenheide of the American Independent Party, rather than GOP incumbent Rep. Mary Bono Mack, because Lussenheide is a "true conservative."

Pennsylvania: Volunteers for Democratic House candidate Bryan Lentz in Pennsylvania aided conservative Jim Schneller in his effort to join the race, turning it into a three-way contest with Republican Pat Meehan.

Florida: Candidates listed as having tea party affiliations are running, even though they have been exposed as having no legitimate tea party supporting them.

Michigan: Fake tea party candidates tried to run for two House seats and a number of state offices. Democratic Party officials were linked to the candidacies, and the candidates were declared ineligible.

New Jersey: Republican House candidate Jon Runyan has a "Stop The Fake Tea Party" appeal on his political website. It states: "Polls indicate that Jon Runyan and career politician John Adler are locked in a dead heat as we head in to election day. Realizing that New Jersey's 3rd district is tired of the reckless, out of control expansion of government and explosion of debt in Washington DC, John Adler and the Democrat Political Machines in New Jersey and DC have taken this campaign in to the gutter, resorting to baseless attacks and fraud to hold on to this seat. Adler and his cronies have even installed a fake tea party candidate to keep Jon Runyan from winning this seat."

"It's the strangest thing I've ever seen," Bono Mack told the Times. "It's desperate, and I think the voters see right through it."['cept Amos]

When contacted about the subterfuge, the Democratic National Committee issued this statement: "Republicans have no one to blame but their own ideological intolerance for the bloody civil war on their side."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM

Have you turned the tide yet Amos? Bail harder.

Jerry Moonbeam Brown says he is going "to make the sun rise in the west and move over to the east".

But he can't see Russia from his house. Is he blind?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes
The New York Times

Seeking any advantage in their effort to retain control of Congress, Democrats are working behind the scenes in a number of tight races to bolster long-shot third-party candidates who have platforms at odds with the Democratic agenda but hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.

Wade C. Vose, a lawyer for Tea Party activists who say Mr. Guetzloe hijacked their movement, issued a subpoena to Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat with ties to Mr. Guetzloe.

The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.

In California, Republicans have received recorded phone calls from a professed but unidentified "registered Republican" who says she is voting for the American Independent Party's candidate for a House seat, Bill Lussenheide, not for the incumbent Republican, Mary Bono Mack.

The caller says she is voting that way because "it's time we show Washington what a true conservative looks like."

The recording was openly paid for by the Democratic candidate for the seat, Mayor Steve Pougnet of Palm Springs.

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for a suburban Philadelphia House seat, Bryan Lentz, admitted this week that his volunteers helped Jim Schneller - a prominent skeptic of President Obama's citizenship - collect petitions to run against Mr. Lentz and his Republican opponent, Pat Meehan.

In Nevada, conservative radio listeners have heard an advertisement promoting the Senate campaign of a "Tea Party of Nevada" candidate, Scott Ashjian. The ads criticize Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee and favored candidate of the actual Tea Party movement in the race against Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader.

The ad was sponsored by a group backed by unions and casino and mining companies supporting Mr. Reid.

Nevada is one of several states, including Florida, where "Tea Party" political committees have appeared on ballot lines without the knowledge or support of leading Tea Party activists, who have generally chosen not to support third-party candidacies. In most of those cases, local bloggers, reporters and lawyers have traced connections to local Democrats, drawing lawsuits, complaints and, in a couple of cases, admissions of involvement.

"It is one of the dirtiest moves," said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, a vice chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "It's not as though the Democrats are playing to compete against the third party - they're helping to build the third party up to make those votes not count."

Calling it "a concerted effort," Mr. McCarthy added, "In Congressional races, it could steer the tide for the majority."

In response to questions about whether the efforts were being coordinated on a national level, the Democratic National Committee said in a statement, "Republicans have no one to blame but their own ideological intolerance for the bloody civil war on their side."

Stealth support for third-party candidates who have the potential to cut into the other side's votes is a time-tested political tradition for both parties.

But this year's efforts are striking for the potency of the grass-roots movement that Democrats are trying to use to their advantage - that is, the Tea Party - and for the sometimes brazen nature of the attempts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes
The New York Times

Mr. Pougnet, the Democrat running for Ms. Bono Mack's House seat in Palm Springs, openly discloses his sponsorship of the telephone calls and mailings he is directing to conservative voters labeling Mr. Lussenheide as "the Tea Party candidate" and Ms. Bono Mack as a "raging liberal" by comparison.

"It's the strangest thing I've ever seen," Ms. Bono Mack said. "It's desperate, and I think the voters see right through it."

Mr. Pougnet's campaign manager, Jordan Marks, said, "There's nothing wrong with pointing out to voters who are more conservative that there's a more conservative alternative on the ballot."

In other efforts, Democrats have tried to keep a lower profile, though they have not always succeeded.

In Michigan, local Republicans and Tea Party activists were immediately suspicious when a "Tea Party" ballot line appeared with candidates running for two competitive House seats and several state offices. The ballot line was thrown out on a technicality last month, but only after a series of blog and newspaper reports uncovered the hidden hand of two Oakland County Democratic officials. Both men resigned.

Mr. Lentz's admission this week that his supporters had a role in placing Mr. Schneller on the ballot in the Pennsylvania House race followed months of suspicion that Mr. Lentz was somehow involved. He had avoided questions until this week, when he told the editorial board of The Delaware County Daily Times, "If somebody's already made the decision to run, I didn't think that 'helping' with the process of signature petitions was improper."

Here in Florida, local Republicans and grass-roots Tea Party activists continue to press the case that "Tea Party" candidates on the ballot are stalking horses for Democrats, an assertion denied by Democrats.

Everett Wilkinson is among grass-roots Tea Party activists disconcerted to learn of a "Tea Party" linked to Mr. Guetzloe.

Polls and independent analysts suggest that the incumbent Democrat in Orlando, Representative Alan Grayson, a firebrand liberal whose defeat is eagerly sought by conservatives, faces an uphill fight to keep his seat in what has been a bitterly fought campaign against his Republican rival, Daniel Webster. But the candidate running on the "Tea Party" ballot line in Orlando, Peg Dunmire, could prove pivotal if Mr. Grayson is to pull off a squeaker.

The "Tea Party" in Florida was formed and registered with the state in 2009 by an Orlando-area lawyer, Frederic B. O'Neal, with help from a longtime client, Doug Guetzloe, an activist, radio host and Republican operative in a running feud with his party, who has earned a reputation as a political trickster. (On Friday, Mr. Guetzloe was sentenced to 60 days in prison for a misdemeanor campaign violation relating to an anonymous political flier he sent four years ago, but his sentence does not start until after the election.)

Tea Party activists in the state said they were flabbergasted to learn of the existence of a "Tea Party" ballot line and Mr. Guetzloe's involvement with it.

"I didn't know who the heck these people were," said Everett Wilkinson, a grass-roots activist who has tangled with Mr. Guetzloe and Mr. O'Neal in separate lawsuits.

The grass-roots Tea Party activists and state Republicans, have homed in on a number of connections between Mr. Grayson and Mr. Guetzloe that have become fodder in the local news media, especially in reports on the CBS affiliate, WKMG-TV.

Mr. Guetzloe serves on two business advisory boards set up by Mr. Grayson. A son of Mr. Guetzloe worked as an intern in Mr. Grayson's Congressional office last year. Federal Election Commission filings show that Mr. Grayson has paid nearly $50,000 to a polling firm that was incorporated in late 2008 by an on-and-off employee of Mr. Guetzloe, Victoria Torres, who is now herself running as a state candidate on the "Tea Party" ballot line that Mr. Guetzloe helped create.

In his most recent campaigns, Mr. Grayson advertised on Mr. Guetzloe's local radio program before it was canceled this year, with some proceeds going directly to Mr. Guetzloe's company, including, at least in June, a modest commission, station records show.

Mr. Guetzloe played down his connections to Mr. Grayson, saying that he is one of scores of people on Mr. Grayson's advisory panels and that his son secured his internship at Mr. Grayson's office through his school.

"This has nothing to do with the Democratic Party; it has nothing to do with Alan Grayson," said Mr. Guetzloe in an interview.

In an interview outside his house, Mr. Grayson dismissed as "conspiracy theories" suggestions that he had any contact with Mr. Guetzloe regarding the "Tea Party" ballot line. "The Republican Party of Florida wants people to think that there's something here," he said. "The old saying where there's smoke there's fire? Here there's not even any smoke."

Late last month, in a legal battle between Mr. Guetzloe and grass-roots Tea Party activists who accuse him of hijacking their movement, Wade C. Vose, a local election lawyer representing them, issued a subpoena for Mr. Grayson to sit for a deposition. Mr. Grayson was also ordered to share all written or electronic communications he had had with Mr. Guetzloe, members of the registered "Tea Party" and others. That deposition was to take place on Thursday.

Last week, however, Mr. Guetzloe dropped his defamation suit, filed in May, citing procedural wrangling with Mr. Vose - scuttling the order for Mr. Grayson to answer questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:02 PM

Sawz:

If you are going to rattle on with THREE separate repeats of the same information, use links instead of just pasting, Sheeshe.

Otherwise it sounds like you are just bellowing extra loud to make noise.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:10 PM

bellowing extra loud to make noise.

Sounded more like a fart to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:49 PM

Please elaborate Amos. And what have you said to dispute the actual facts that were posted?

By making a personal attack and not addressing the validity of the facts, you are accepting the facts and expressing a dislike for the person that posted them.

DO you ant to address these facts or launch another logical fallacy attack on me?

Soros: I Can't Stop a Republican Avalanche
L A Times

George Soros, the billionaire financier who was an energetic Democratic donor in the last several election cycles but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democratic prospects.

I made an exception getting involved in 2004, Mr. Soros, 80, said in a brief interview Friday at a forum sponsored by the Bretton Woods Committee, which promotes understanding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

And since I didn't succeed in 2004, I remained engaged in 2006 and 2008. But I'm basically not a party man. I'd just been forced into that situation by what I considered the excesses of the Bush administration.

Mr. Soros, a champion of liberal causes, has been directing his money to groups that work on health care and the environment, rather than electoral politics. Asked if the prospect of Republican control of one or both houses of Congress concerned him, he said: "It does, because I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I'm not in a position to stop it. I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:57 PM

I have said nothing, Sawzer, to dispute the story (it is only one story recycled three times) you haveposted. Asserting they are facts is problematic, but even stipulating they are, I see no great scandal in playing politics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:17 PM

Mr. Soros... has been directing his money to groups that work on health care and the environment, rather than electoral politics.

As opposed to the Koch brothers, who have been dumping vast sums of money into far right-wing electoral politics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:42 AM

The question for the Republicans now is whether they are going to bask in triumphalism or get down to the real work of governing. It is one thing to pander and obstruct when you are out of power. With a divided government, it won't take long for voters to demand that they explain their plans.

John Boehner, the likely speaker of the House, has not provided a clue of how his party will begin to cut the deficit, which Republicans say is their top priority. One of the few specific promises he has made would dig an even deeper hole: extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts.

And exit polls suggested that even these more conservative voters get what the Republican Party leadership still doesn't: that there is no way to tackle the deficit and slash taxes at the same time. Only 19 percent said cutting taxes was the top priority for the next Congress.

Anticipating a big win on Tuesday, leading Republicans haven't been talking about substance, only more obstructionism. Mr. Boehner said the other day that the president was welcome to support Republican programs. But as for Mr. Obama's agenda, he said, "We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."

Mike Pence, the No. 3 Republican, said there would be "no compromise" on repealing the health care reform law and permanently extending all Bush-era tax cuts, including for the wealthiest Americans.

A Republican majority in the House of Representatives should pursue Republican priorities. But what we have been hearing sounds disturbingly like what we heard after the 1994 election, when Newt Gingrich, then the speaker-to-be, announced that there would be no compromising on his agenda.

The result was gridlock. The Republicans shut down the government, which ultimately cost Mr. Gingrich his job and the Republicans their majority.

One thing is very clear from all the polls and all the voting: Americans are fed up with that sort of gamesmanship. It's bad for the country.

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:37 AM

IN THE COMING GOVERMENT SHUT DOWN, THIS TIME fox NEWS WILL DEFINE THE EVENT AS A TRIUMPH OF THE PEOPLE.

I will NOT cost Republicans as it did before. They will point to the money not spent during the shutdown as "savings".

The suffering will be monumental but described by the media as "the people have spoken".

When push comes to shove the Congress has been disbanded before.
Don't wish too hard for something...you may get it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM

(it is only one story recycled three times)

The first post was somenes atricle anout something in the New York Times,

The second post was the actual article in the New York Times.

The second one was too long so I broke it off and put the rest in the third post.

I thought we were discussing issues here and not trying to disprove something by how it was posted or who posted it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

Koch Brothers VS Soros:

How many jobs does Soros provide for the American people?

What does he contribute to the economy?

How does he make his money? Does he produce anything?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 10:29 AM

"...Bachmann's disastrous turn outside the Fox bubble was instructive, for it showed how the liars' club works. The $200 million figure originated in India, attributed to an anonymous foreign bureaucrat, and quickly went to the Drudge Report. On Fox and Rush Limbaugh's radio rant, the absurdity that the United States would spend more on a presidential trip than the daily cost to prosecute the Afghanistan war quickly became gospel. Did these people ever call the White House or the Pentagon to check the facts before going ballistic? Perish the thought.

Glenn Beck went nuts (a redundancy). And while acknowledging that he didn't know if the figures were accurate, he felt comfortable enough to cite "a report that has made the rounds on the Internet." A commentator on Fox business "news" and the Republican fundraiser and Fox host Sean Hannity followed their scripts and Beck.

But this particular lie prompted a minor civil conflict in Rupert Murdoch's empire. The Murdoch employee Mike Huckabee challenged fellow Murdoch employees on their outrage over a made-up figure.

At the same time, The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch's crown jewel, went after another Murdoch employee, Sarah Palin, on one of her errors, which appear on a regular basis from her Twitter feed or in speeches. Palin attacked the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which is about as far over her head as she ever wants to get, and showed profound ignorance on inflation. She said anyone who'd gone shopping lately would know that "grocery prices have risen significantly over the past year." A Journal blogger then noted that food and beverage inflation was practically nonexistent for the past year — the lowest on record — and that Palin was having some trouble with reading comprehension.

Huckabee wants to be president, and to be taken seriously. The Wall Street Journal needs credibility on basic economic facts in order to survive. And that takes us to the incoming Republican leadership, which will succeed or fail based on whether they are able to legislate with the truth in mind, or follow the crazies.

Republicans caught a break when Sharron Angle lost her bid to unseat Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Angle's most preposterous claim was that Shariah, or Islamic law, existed in the good old U.S. of A. Why, just now, two cities — Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Tex. — were under the dreaded jihadist rule, she said.

"I don't know how that happened in the United States," said Angle. Nor does anyone else, because it didn't happen, and couldn't under our Constitution, which separates church (and mosque) from state. Frankford no longer exists as a town, though a reporter for CNN did find a small church and a cemetery within its confines. The mayor of Dearborn, Jack O'Reilly, said Muslims and Christians have been living peacefully with each other for decades.

Would it surprise you that Palin was Angle's most prominent supporter? And that Palin's other big political pick in the Southwest was Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer, who famously claimed that "our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded." Sounds like Shariah again. Except in this case the lie was used to make people afraid of Mexicans. Brewer finally backed off when she was unable to cite a single instance of a headless body in the treeless desert.

Palin no longer has to govern, since quitting halfway through her term in Alaska. Relying on her singular, God-given inability to properly digest facts, she's free to make stuff up without consequence. She was awarded the 2009 "lie of the year" by Politifact.com for inventing "death panels" in the health care bill. That site, along with factcheck.org, attempt to referee the whoppers in public policy debates, and are worth a visit for anyone trying to follow the news. But they hardly seem to matter to Palin.

Other Republicans, as they move legislation through Congress, will be held to higher standards. Is global warming real? Will extending tax cuts on the richest two percent dramatically increase the deficit? Is the surge in Afghanistan doing any good, or just prolonging a winless war? Big questions, big issues. Keeping Bachmann isolated in the make-believe studios of Fox would be a good start.
"

(NYT)

---

It is about time someone blew the whistle on fact-challenged ineptitude.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM

But Amos, a significant segment of the U.S. population WORSHIPS fact-challenged ineptitude as a positive good!

( Douggie, I hope you recognize yourself among this number.)

"Blowing the whistle" would/will do no good whatsoever; facts do not signify in these folks' delusional world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:49 PM

The Republicans are like a broken record on the "debt ceiling". They think that if they take away government programs and make everyone poor and holy that they can pull the country out of a recession. That's like solving the problems of a depressed person by handing them a loaded weapon.

You just wait. You think we got recession now, wait until the Repubs get through with their austerity programs. They think that the solution for hunger is to starve everyone so that their cronies can eat well at the expense of the poor and middle class.

It's a "let 'em eat cake" situation.

The Greedy Old Party is at least consistent. They caused the Great Depression of the Thirties and they want to bring it back again for the benefit of the new Rockerfellers, Carnegies,(C.E.O.'s and banks) and the great robber barons of yore. With Republicans in office, watch your wallet.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:57 PM

"David Stockman, who was Reagan's budget director, has gone in another direction. He's renouncing deficit-building tax cuts, calling for their rollback.

"We've had a 30-year spree of really phony prosperity in this country," Stockman recently told Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes."

Stockman derided the "anti-tax religion" of the GOP.

"Well it's become in a sense an absolute. Something that can't be questioned, something that's gospel, something that's sort of embedded into the catechism and so scratch the average Republican today and he'll say 'Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts,'" Stockman told Stahl. He added, "To stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."

In short, tax cuts provide the illusion to the American public that Social Security, Medicare, military spending and government funded public expenditures - such as highways - can be had without citizens paying a fair share.

As for the wealthy, Stockman was loaded for bear in another appearance, this one on ABC News: "Two years after the crisis on Wall Street, it has been announced that bonuses this year will be $144 billion, the highest in history. That's who's going to get this tax cut on the top, you know, 2 percent of the population. They don't need a tax cut. They don't deserve it."

When Stockman declares, "We're now becoming the banana republic [of] finance," wise men and women should listen.

After all, he was the person who put together the largest tax cuts in US history. He knows of what he speaks."

Buzzflash

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM

Stockman has a right to an opinion! He certainly is not a spokesperson for the GOP, however.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM

You're right, Douggie, he's not fact-challenged, inept, or delusional enough to be a spokesperson for what the Republican Party has become.

Perhaps you could take the job, being as you're all three?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: ollaimh
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:22 PM

bush and his policy people were so ignorant of the world they really thought they could win quick in iraq and make money from the oil through us companies. thats' the danger of leadership who have almost no idea whats going on in the world, not to mention voters who have little idea. i remember the news conference when rumsfeld was asked about hwy the british got bogged down for 47 years in iraq and why would america do any better and he dismissed those facts as not true and moved on.

the british dod try to set up a kingdom with constitutional checks and regional rights but it fell apart to the bathists very quickly after they pulled out.

the us also uver threw the modzadegd democratically elected government of iran amd woder why the iranians hate the us. the post war irianian government was following the turkish moderenization model, all dectroyed, resulting in decades of the shah's torture state supported by the us and then an equally hated full revolution to get rid of the shah.

you have to have some understanding of these countries to invade and hope to bring about a good result. and if you have no such understanding you should stay home. not to mention the expenses.

i start here to point out why i'd never have anything to do with the republicans and the tea party corporate totalitarians(funded by the kock billionaires).

but my revulsion foes back to the suport of rios mont in guatemala who massacred over two hundred thousand mayans peasants, becasue they were "communists". a genocidal war crime if there ever was one.
pat robertson was key in the support for mont, and i note recently wants chavez assinated. how anyone listens to these raving nuts amazes mebut listen they do. they listen because of ignorance. the media that used to try to inform has become lock step with the corporate adgenda. i miss tass and pravda. they had crazy interpretations of things but they felt compelled to reporttt facts, not modern american media.

anyway if you don't mind genocide in gautemala why not in iraq!all apid for by republican deficits. note the dems did try to balance the budget under carter and clinton, but republican congress began spending the projested surplusses before they occured.

most american seem unaware that they beenfit by roughly a twenty per cent a year bump in the gdp by being the currency of world trade, ifthey keep going into debt theyn will not only lose that but piss off all the people holding the devaluating us bonds.

some awareness of the massive and unnecessary civilian deaths in iraq and the genocidal activities in central america would be nice but i no longer thank a moral and ethical person could vote republican except from pure ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:39 AM

"Democrats still searching for a silver lining to the waxing they took last Tuesday can cheer up a bit. According to a new poll, the public may already be experiencing a bit of buyerÕs remorse about the choices theyÕve made, and Republicans seem to have unrealistic expectations about what their leaders will be able to accomplish.

A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that people are considerably less happy about the RepublicansÕ victory than they were about the DemocratsÕ victory in 2006 or about the RepublicansÕ victory in 1994. They also approve much less of the ÒRepublicansÕ policies and plans for the futureÓ than they did of the DemocratsÕ plans in 2006 or the RepublicansÕ plans in 1994. (I must say that that question threw me a bit because I didnÕt know that Republicans had Òpolicies and plansÓ for the future. Silly me.)

About 60 percent of the respondents thought that the Republicans in 1994 and the Democrats in 2006 would be successful in getting their programs passed into law. This year, just more than 40 percent believed this about the Republicans. In fact, unlike in 2008 and 2006, more people than not believed that relations between Republicans and Democrats in Washington would now get worse.

That doesnÕt sound like a ringing endorsement to me. It sounds like a Congress of Low Expectations. ..."

(NYT columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 11:06 PM

Why Palin Badly Needs to Study History--some telling remarks from the usually-right WaPo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 11:49 PM

Profile of a Boss Hogg mortgage rip off fat cat:

In 1969, Franklin Raines, a Democrat, first worked in national politics, preparing a report for the Nixon administration on the causes and patterns of youth unrest around the country related to the Vietnam War. He served in the Carter Administration as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget and assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff from 1977 to 1979. Then he joined Lazard Freres and Co., where he worked for 11 years and became a general partner. In 1991 he became Fannie's Mae's Vice Chairman, a post he left in 1996 in order to join the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae as CEO, "the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company."

On December 21, 2004 Raines accepted what he called "early retirement" from his position as CEO while U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. He is accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses.

In 2006, the OFHEO announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $90 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings, initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as 6.3 billion.

Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused. On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of "other benefits" said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal called it a "paltry settlement" which allowed Raines and the other two executives to "keep the bulk of their riches." In 2003 alone, Raines's compensation was over $20 million.

In the New York Times John Steele Gordon wrote an opinion criticizing
Raines' contribution to the 2008 financial crisis caused by the failure of Fannie Mae. "He cooked the books at Fannie to increase his compensation (more than $90 million)

A statement issued by Raines said of the consent order, "is consistent with my acceptance of accountability as the leader of Fannie Mae and with my strong denial of the allegations made against me by OFHEO."

In a settlement with OFHEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Fannie paid a record $400 million civil fine. Fannie, which is the largest American financier and guarantor of home mortgages, also agreed to make changes in its corporate culture and accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

In June 2008 The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines was one of several public officials [Chris Dodd, Jim Johnson, Kent Conrad, Donna Shalala, Richard Holbrooke] who received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae.

Barack Obama was the second-largest recipient of contributions from Fannie and Freddie sources during his brief Senate tenure. Former president Bill Clinton said it best in 2008. "I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:30 AM

According to whitehouse.gov:

In 2007, a growing U.S. economy led to record revenue of $2.6 trillion.

Government revenue increased steadily from 2003 through 2007, largely because of taxes on increasing individual incomes and corporate profits.

And all this time I thought the tax cuts cased a decline in revenues.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:42 PM

A Texas jury has convicted former House majority leader Tom DeLay, once one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress, on money laundering and conspiracy charges.

DeLay, a former No. 2 House GOP leader, faces five to 99 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 on the money laundering charge.

He appeared shocked, according to the Austin American-Statesman, when jurors reported their findings one by one. Sentencing is set for Dec. 20.

The lawmaker known as "The Hammer" was indicted in 2005 on charges that he illegally sent $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee to help elect Republicans to the Texas Legislature during the 2002 election cycle.

The legal case in Texas caused DeLay, majority leader from 2003 to 2005, to leave Congress in 2006.

The former exterminator was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from a suburban Houston district in 1984. He rose to power as a leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution, which saw the party take control of the House for the first time four decades. DeLay earned his nickname, "The Hammer," for his hard-charging style and way of convincing donors to give to the GOP.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 08:36 AM

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:42 AM

After a year of increasingly depressing news about the unbridled, unaccountable influence of big money in political campaigns, a Texas jury stood up for honesty in campaign finance on Wednesday and convicted Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, of money laundering. Unfortunately, there are now many new ways for politicians to commit acts similar to those for which Mr. DeLay was convicted, all of them perfectly legal.


During his tenure leading House Republicans, Mr. DeLay established a new low in ethical conduct among Congressional leaders. He put family members on his campaign payroll, took lavish trips paid for by lobbyists and twisted the arms of K Street lobbyists to ante up and donate to his partyÕs candidates and hire more Republicans. But his conviction on Wednesday came from something else entirely, a scheme to steer corporate contributions to Republicans in the Texas Legislature.

Texas bans corporations from giving money directly to state candidates, just as federal law does at the national level. But Mr. DeLay figured out a way around that barrier: In 2002, he used his state political action committee to channel $190,000 in corporate contributions to the Republican National Committee, which then donated the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Six of them won, and Republicans took control of the Legislature for the first time in modern history, redistricting the stateÕs Congressional districts to the partyÕs benefit.

ÒThis was a scheme to get corporate money that they knew could not be used in Texas and get it to these candidates,Ó one of the prosecutors, Beverly Mathews, told the jury. ÒTom DeLay was in on it.Ó

The prosecution called that money laundering Ñ an untested legal theory in Texas Ñ and the jury agreed, also convicting him on a conspiracy charge. The first charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison, although it seems unlikely his sentence will be that long.

Mr. DeLay will presumably pursue multiple rounds of appeals. But whether he wins or loses personally, his larger goal of finding ways to get more corporate money into politics has already been achieved. Thanks to the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., corporations are now free to donate unlimited amounts of money. They cannot give it directly to candidates, but they can give to ÒindependentÓ committees that run ads for or against candidates. To most viewers, ads run by these committees Ñ as the nation saw during the midterm election campaign Ñ are indistinguishable from those run by the candidates themselves.

In a trend Mr. DeLay undoubtedly appreciated, most of that new corporate money went to Republicans. He may go to jail for violating the letter of the law, but a whole new generation of political operatives is still violating the spirit in which that law was written. His conviction should stand as a warning for how society regards that violation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:03 PM

Tom DeLay is evidently a crook. Throw him in jail and loose the key.

We don't need crooks in the government. We need people that prosecute crooks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:32 PM

Crook he may be, but he's still a BuShite Republican folk hero and role model.

Let's hear some of the high-level Republicans & TeaBaggers denounce him.....

Right.   Don't hold your breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM

"Today, Congress sets a new record; in the last 40 years, it has never allowed extended unemployment benefits to expire when the unemployment rate was above 7.2 percent. But today, in an economy that faces a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, Congress will let the benefits expire and force 2.5 million Americans to lose their benefits in the midst of the holiday season. As the New York Times notes, such a "lack of regard for working Americans is shocking," especially when juxtaposed with decades of bipartisan support for similar measures. But, in their pitch to obstruct any legislative progress, the Republicans of the 111th Congress have waged a two-year, all-out war against extending benefits, regardless of who it may hurt. The GOP's chief defense of its position is the $12.5 billion cost of a three-month extension, or $60 billion for a full year. Such feigned concern for the deficit is made all the more deceptive when considering the same Republicans are simultaneously demanding that Congress extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. And, while these tax cuts for the rich provide very little economic stimulus, the unemployment benefits they obstruct have provided a vital economic boost to struggling families and businesses. By prioritizing the pocketbooks of the privileged over the needs of the American worker, Republicans are turning their back on their two alleged priorities: the American people and the economy.
"\\

The Progress Report

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 06:38 PM

Hmmmmm, Amos??? With crooked Delay convicted does that mean that Texas is going to have to revisit the crooked redistricting they were able to do because of some real crooked tricks on Tom's part???

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:44 AM

A Democrat success story:

Chicago shutters infamous public housing complex AP

For decades, Chicago's infamous Cabrini-Green high-rises with their fenced-in balconies and horrific high-profile crimes were a symbol of the failure of public housing in America.

Their closure this month ends an ugly era. But for the last of the Cabrini residents moving out, the shuttering also marks the start of an uncertain time. While some families who have already left the complex are faring better, it's still difficult to track whether the plan to overhaul Chicago's public housing is improving the lives of those low-income families relocated. More than 1,700 families have been moved from Cabrini-Green since the Chicago Public Housing Authority's sweeping "Plan for Transformation" started in 2000. With just one building set to fall, a federal judge has given the two remaining families at Cabrini's last high-rise until Dec. 10 to move out.

"Are people better off? That's still an open question," said D. Bradford Hunt, a Roosevelt University social science professor who's written a book about public housing in Chicago. "Some people are worse off. For some people, not much has changed. And some people are better off. The question is what percentage, and we don't know that." About half of the Cabrini residents who have relocated live in homes that are still close to their old complex, the Housing Authority said. The rest are scattered across the Chicago area. Mary Johns, editor of the Residents' Journal, a publication produced for and by public housing residents, said crime reports suggest some of the neighborhoods where residents have moved are as dangerous as Cabrini had been.

Cabrini initially was hailed as a salvation for the city's poor and was emulated nationwide. But the 70-acre development quickly decayed into the kind of place where children were gunned down on their way to school, or sexually assaulted and left for dead.
The development started on Chicago's North Side in 1942 with row houses named for St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, the Roman Catholic patron saint of immigrants. A few years later, high-rises and mid-rises were added. Eventually, Cabrini housed as many as 13,000 people. But the buildings weren't well-maintained, and crime, gangs and drugs soon became rampant.

The complex drew national attention in 1981 after a gang war killed 11 residents in three months. Then-Mayor Jane Byrne and her husband moved into a Cabrini apartment for three weeks to publicize her efforts to clean up the area. In 1992, a Cabrini resident hiding in a vacant 10th-floor apartment shot and killed 7-year-old Dantrell Davis as he walked to school holding his mother's hand. Five years later, a 9-year-old girl known as Girl X was found raped, choked, poisoned and left in a stairwell with gang graffiti scribbled on her body.

The Housing Authority developed a sweeping plan to overhaul public housing and move away from the high-rise model of warehousing the poor. The last Cabrini high-rise is slated for demolition in January or February. Mixed-income townhouses, shops and other redevelopment will go up in Cabrini's place, erasing from the landscape the island of poverty that the high-rises had become. Cabrini sits literally in the shadows of downtown's gleaming skyscrapers. A few blocks east or west, handbags sell for more money than Cabrini residents pay in rent for a year.

Alther Harris, 67, has lived in Cabrini for more than 30 years and considers it home. She moved to Cabrini's last high-rise a year ago from a building that has since been demolished. She said the series of recent moves have been "very, very stressful."
"You can't clean up right, you can't cook right, you can't eat right because you know that day is coming," said Harris, who lives with her daughter and three grandchildren. "It keeps a person's mind confused not really knowing what's coming next."

The housing agency said in a statement late Tuesday that it was "continuing to work with the remaining families" at the last building, including those who have resisted the move. Harris is being moved to a nearby public housing townhome with three bedrooms. She said it's too small for her family, but she doesn't have much choice.Former Cabrini residents also have been offered vouchers for private apartments. And housing officials said they would be able to return to the Cabrini area once the new buildings are done.

Kenneth Hammond said the townhome he was offered wasn't done being rehabbed and had boards on its door and cracked windows. The private apartment he and his family were shown looked nice during the day, but the neighborhood turned unsafe at night, he said. "What we as residents want to do is be accommodated right and leave the building with pride and dignity," Hammond said. "We just want to be treated fairly."

Brenda Lockett can sympathize with residents who don't want to leave the high-rises behind. She remembers being terrified when first told that she'd have to move, and she pledged to hold onto the building's beams as it was being demolished. But six months after moving into a townhome with her husband and three youngest children, she said she couldn't be happier. "We moved from the pit to the palace," she said. "I can live here until I get old and gray."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 10:46 PM

I have the actual signed letter by all 42 Republicans here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:15 PM

They have blocked passage of a bill which would have done much to save young girls from child marriage throughout the world. Their own members have called them out on such a shameful act: GOP BLOCK CHILD MARRIAGE PREVENTION

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 11:50 AM

"It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end Bush-era income tax cuts and — as a little bonus — won deep estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term, while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money had been spent more wisely.

That should have been evidence enough that the Republican Party's one real priority is tax cuts — despite all the talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some more:

On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays, House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.

First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending, which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress annually.)

The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.

It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-spending increases be offset by spending cuts only — and actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such spending.

Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years, but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.

Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural course of politics for which no payment is required.

For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working families — extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal — unless it is fully paid for.

House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all, and it unfailingly rallies their base.
..."

NYT Ed

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 02:31 PM

Republicans are not our friends, and they are irresponsible fiscally. In other news, water is wet, bears defecate sylvanially, and the pope is Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:28 AM

"You just can't close the door on this crowd. The party that brought us the worst economy since the Great Depression, that led us into Iraq and the worst foreign policy disaster in American history, that would like to take a hammer to Social Security and a chisel to Medicare, is back in control of the House of Representatives with the expressed mission of undermining all things Obama.

Once we had Dick Cheney telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and belligerently asserting that deficits don't matter. We had Phil Gramm, Enron's favorite senator and John McCain's economic guru, blithely assuring us in 2008 that we were suffering from a "mental recession."

(Mr. Gramm was some piece of work. A champion of deregulation, he was disdainful of ordinary people. "We're the only nation in the world," he once said, "where all of our poor people are fat.")

Maybe the voters missed the entertainment value of the hard-hearted, compulsively destructive G.O.P. headliners. Maybe they viewed them the way audiences saw the larger-than-life villains in old-time melodramas. It must be something like that because it's awfully hard to miss the actual policies of a gang that almost wrecked the country.

" Full articlehere in the NYT.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:51 PM

Well, I find it interesting that given Congress's overall approval ratings that the first order of the Bonehead led House will be to repeal health care reform... Then begin investigation of the Obama administration...

Are these people retarded, 'er what??? Blowing more tax dollars on grandstandin' is going to insure a major Repub defeat in two years...

I mean, ever Helen Keller can see that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:53 PM

Obstreperous, intransigent, contumacious jejeune malefactors every last one of 'em.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:36 PM

Blowing more tax dollars on grandstandin' is going to insure a major Repub defeat in two years.

Not a chance. The Boobocracy absolutely LOVES these clowns; just put 'em back in power so they can fu$k the country over--- one more time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 08:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 10:03 AM

Who Killed Line Item Veto Law that almost lead to budget surpluses? Washington Post June 26, 1998

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the broad new line-item veto authority that Congress had given the president to cancel specific items in spending and tax bills. Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Robert C. Byrd welcomed the court's decision by displaying their personal copies of the Constitution. Within a couple of hours of the ruling, the law's backers announced they will try again to find a constitutional way to expand the president's powers to cut pork-barrel expenditures.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto. Passage of the legislation in 1996 and its implementation in 1997 climaxed more than a century of struggle by presidents for this new authority. It was a rare unilateral yielding of power by Congress to the chief executive, prompted by Congress's increasing concern over its own lack of fiscal discipline. President Clinton, who had line-item veto powers as governor of Arkansas, signed the bill with relish and moved quickly, although cautiously, to begin trimming spending bills.

But the judicial branch, looking to constitutional rather than political or fiscal priorities, took a far dimmer view of the power swap. Unlike earlier laws giving the president discretionary spending authority, "this act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Such line-item vetoes are "the functional equivalent of partial repeals of acts of Congress," he said. But "there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes," he added.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. "Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies," he said in a concurring opinion. The decision comes as a blow both to Clinton, who used the new power 82 times over the past 18 months, and to GOP leaders, who made the line-item veto a marquee item in their 1994 "Contract With America."

"The decision is a defeat for all Americans," Clinton said in a statement issued while traveling in China. "It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds." On Capitol Hill, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored the law with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said the decision "means a retreat to the practice of loading up otherwise necessary legislation with pork-barrel spending."

By contrast, the law's foes were ecstatic. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) raised his arm in a salute and exclaimed, "God save this honorable court." Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that Congress "tried to bend the Constitution [but] the court said it will not allow this to happen." In his opinion, Stevens said Congress could alter the president's role in determining the final text of a law only by constitutional amendment. But Coats and other line-item veto supporters acknowledged that mustering the two-thirds majority in each house needed to move the constitutional amendment process forward would be difficult.

Instead, Coats and McCain said they will introduce legislation immediately to get around the Supreme Court's objections by breaking each appropriations bill into individual items, passing each one separately and sending them to the president to be signed or vetoed as separate bills. The House balked at such a Senate proposal before settling on the current line-item veto law, gagging at the prospect of passing what could be thousands of separate appropriations bills instead of the 13 that must now be passed every year. Computers have since eased the procedural problems, Coats said, making the "separate enrollment" approach more feasible.

But many lawmakers' love affair with the line-item veto has cooled since Clinton began zeroing out some of their favorite projects and recent government projections of surpluses for the next several years. Many Republicans, who had put off implementing the law for months in hopes it would fall into the hands of a GOP president, are not keen about empowering Clinton or a possible Democratic successor. Moreover, there is little time left in this session for such a controversial issue.

Under the line-item veto law, the president could sign bills and then cancel spending for specific projects, narrowly targeted tax breaks, or new or expanded entitlement programs. Congress could reinstate the spending but would have to muster a two-thirds vote of both houses to override a veto. Congress overrode only one of Clinton's line-item vetoes, involving 38 projects worth $287 million in a military construction bill; the vetoes that stood reversed $869 million in spending and tax breaks.

The challenge to the law came from New York and Idaho. New York City and hospital groups sued to restore tax breaks tied to the Medicaid program. The Snake River Potato Growers objected to Clinton's veto of a provision allowing deferral of capital gains taxes from sale of processing facilities to farmers' cooperatives. A lower court had ruled in the challengers' favor. It was the Supreme Court's second ruling on the line-item veto. Last year the court set aside a suit brought by Byrd and five other lawmakers, saying they lacked legal standing to bring the case because they had not been sufficiently hurt by the law. Yesterday the court said the New York and Idaho groups had met this test.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, with Scalia and O'Connor saying the Idaho potato growers had not shown they were harmed and hence lacked standing to sue; all three said the line-item veto should have been declared constitutional. "There is not a dime's worth of difference between Congress authorizing the president to cancel a spending item, and Congress's authorizing money to be spent on a particular item at the president's discretion. And the latter has been done since the founding of the nation," said Scalia.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 10:30 AM

??????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:31 PM

"1. When Bush took office in 2001, he was handed a $236 billion budget surplus.
2.When he LEFT office, he handed the Obama admin a $1.3 trillion defecit"

So what is the difference between a budget surplus and a deficit?

Shouldn't you compare deficits to deficits?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:35 PM

Shouldn't you compare deficits to deficits?


?????????

OK Bushes Deficit was Negative 236 billion. LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 07:13 PM

Let me explain it to you, Sawzaw.

If you have $10 in your checking account after you have paid all your monthly bills, you have what is known as a $10 surplus;

If you have $10 in your checking account and you have $3,000 in bills, you have a $2,990 deficit.

$3,000-$10=$2,990

Simple arithmetic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 08:18 PM

So you are saying the national deficit went down because Clinton had a surplus? It actually went up nearly $18b

Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, said on October 28, 1999:

So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false.

---

If have $10 left in your checking account at the end of the month but you took another thousand out of your savings account and spend that too, you have a $990 deficit, not a $10 surplus. Simple math.

There may have been $236 b left over after on budget spending the year Bush took office but there was also off budget spending that was taken out of the intra governmental holdings which resulted in a near $18b increase in the national deficit.

If there is a surplus, if the government spends less than it takes in, the deficit goes up not down. Simple math.

Calculating the national debt

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.
In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.
Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.
For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intra governmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

Simple Math.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 10:19 PM

Cut-and-paste from the "Common Sense American Conservatism."

Quelle suprise!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 10:50 PM

There are two deficits that folks need to keep in mind... The first is a "cumulative deficit", i.e national debt, that takes into account not only what deficits and administration has inherited but the various interests that will fluctuate... The other is the "annual" deficit which deals with only a yearly snapshot of how an administration has done in a one year period...

The "cumulative deficit", i.e, that the country is now dealing with is mostly George Bush's wars that weren't paid for but borrowed for...

When we look at "annual deficits", the '09 budget was the last Bush proposed as the outgoing president leaves the next with the first year budget... Bush's came in a $1.4T... Obama's first "annual deficit" for 2010 came in at $1.3T... In simple words, that meant that the Obama administration cut the annual budget deficit by $100B with his first budget...

Now back to the cumulative deficit... T notes go up and down depending on how investors feel about the condition of the economy...

The US has long been looked at as this pillar of security and thus people have wanted to invest in *US* because they feel certain that their investments are safe...

Here's the rub if the Republicans push *US* into default... Investors will want more interest because that safety net will become shredded... This will drive up interest rates to consumers... This will also decrease the amount of $$$ that other folks, especially the Chinese, will want to invest in *US*... I other words, it will hurt our economy at a time when we need to keep investors confident in *US*...

Econ 001 (remedial, non credit...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 12:05 AM

Shouldn't you compare deficits to deficits?

Assuming all that you have said (cut and pasted?) is true Sazaw, You are still comparing an 18 B budget deficit to a 1.3 trillion short fall. That is not including the trillion dollars in health care liabilities incurred for gulf war injuries and the money lost to the the economy from artificially high oil prices from Cheney's misguided energy policy and from the war.

Not only that but one of Bush's Congress' first actions was to invoke a 300 "tax refund" which immediately turned that surplus or small deficit, whichever it was into a significant deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 08:45 AM

Yeah, the right seems to want to revise history (as well as current events) and pin ***the deficit*** on Obama... Heck, 90% of it was handed over to him by Bush... But, no, that little factoid is not part of their narrative... They actually are using words and phrases that are ***fully intended*** to give Joe Sixpack the impression that Obama has created this situation...

The other half of their BIG LIE is that "We're broke"... Every Repub out there has been tutored to be able to say "We'broke" five times real fast so that any time a microphone is put in front of them they parrot "We're broke"... Facts be damned here, as well... The US is the richest country in the world, by far...

We are ***NOT*** broke!!!

The Dems had better learn that up and start cutting into the Repub mythology purdy soon...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:32 PM

Not only is the Bush Administration's deficit that Obama inherited being blamed on Obama, but the WARS that the Bush Administration has stated are also being blamed on Obama.

CAUTION: The following is a remark I heard recently, and it will undoubtedly be construed by some as racist. Perhaps so. But I hear it said by a black man during a discussion of the current situation

"This is not the first time that a black man has had to clean up a mess that a bunch of white men have made."

The Republicans and the "Tea Party" folks seem to have no long-term memory and their short-term memory seems to reach back only as far as the most recent Fox "News" broadcast.

Do we want people who are this ignorant, disingenuous, or out of touch with reality governing the country?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:56 PM

Nah, that ain't racists, Don...

I mean, as I read it, I could see that black man in my mind and hear the inflections... This is black humor that most likely would get a good hardy laugh at a country picnic and then, as in anything that is said at a country picnic that gets a good laugh, the guy would repeat it to another chorus of good laughs...

But on another level, it is also a true statement...

Thanks for the quote...

Back to the Tea Party for a minute... Most are completely oblivious to facts... Even after they were told there were no WMDs in Iraq they continued to ***believe*** that there were... Even after being told that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 they continued to ***believe*** that it had... These people are conspiracy theorists who will believe anything that someone they like (or respect) tells them to believe... They are the birthers... The deathers... And now they ***believe*** that the entire national debt is on Obama, that he started Buhsh's wars and that allowing the countries economy to go into default won't hurt our economy???

This is why revolutions are fought... When the greedy and the stupid get control the sane people will eventually have had enough...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:56 PM

It speaks to the myth of "working with" the Republicans. I believe that President Obama knows that this is impossible. He is just giving them enough rope to hang each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 09:45 PM

"90% of it was handed over to him by Bush" Is revisionist history.

56.6% is the correct figure spread over an 8 year period.

09/30/2000 national deficit $ 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2008 national deficit $10,024,724,896,912.49
up 56.6% or 7.075% avg per year

09/30/2010 national deficit $13,561,623,030,891.79
up 73.9% or 36.8% avg per year or 52 times faster than George.

Democrats have been in control of congress and made up the budgets and spending since 2006.

Congress makes the budgets and the POTUS signs them. Congress can refuse to fund anything they want, wars etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 10:04 PM

Yeah, Jack... Obama thought he could change the tone in Washington and he has done just that... The Repubs are now at a deafening SCREAM... They think they can out-shout logic and reason...

BTW, the Repubs don't want to own Bush's '09 budget deficits of $1.4T even though it was Bush's last annual budget 'cause they'd rather lie than tell the truth...

BTW, Jack, Obama cut $100B in deficits with his first budget (2010) but would the Repubs (the new deficit hawks who never even spoke the word "Deficit" while Bush was running 'um up( say, "Hey, good job"???

Hell no they wouldn't... The truth isn't something that Repubs know much about these days...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 11:03 PM

Not only is the Bush Administration's deficit that Obama inherited being blamed on Obama, but the WARS that the Bush Administration has stated are also being blamed on Obama. ~ Propoganda Minister Firth


"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors…" ~ Bill Clinton    {Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq} December 16, 1998

      "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." ~ Bill Clinton in 1998

      "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." ~ Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

      "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." ~ Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

      "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." ~ Tom Daschle in 1998

      "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." ~ John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

      "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." ~ Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

      "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, 2002

      "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." ~ Bob Graham, December 2002

      "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ~ Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

      "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." ~ John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

      "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." ~ Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

      "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." ~ Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

      "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

      "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." ~ Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

      "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." ~ John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

      "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." ~ John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 11:11 PM

Who ordered up the invasion just 2 weeks after Hanz Bliz told the world that the Iraqis were cooperating fully with the UN Inspection Team???

End of that discussion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 12:59 AM

Here is the scoop on the list of quotes that Disinformation Dispenser pdq cut-and-pasted above.

While Snopes acknowledges that the people quoted did, indeed, say the things attributed to them, be sure to scroll down below the box that contains the quotes to the paragraph labeled "Origins," and read what follows.

The quotes, which have been cited on a large number of Right Wing web sites, were excerpted from longer quotes and taken out of context, which alters the meaning and intent of what the people cited were ACTUALLY saying.

The Snopes web site shows the entire quote, so you can read for yourself what was really being said.

POOF!!

Nice try, pdq, but sorry, No Sale.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:01 AM

"90% of it was handed over to him by Bush" This is from a person that said "you ain't going to hear a bunch of stats out of me cause I don't need um"

Bush ran up the deficit by by $4,350,546,687,025.54 in 8 years. which is 32% of the current deficit not 90%

If Bobert wants to revise history and claim Bush "owned" the '09 deficit then he is saying Clinton "owned" the 2001 deficit and did not hand the mythical surplus to Bush. Bush was handed the deficit that Clinton left which was $5,807,463,412,200.06 9/30/2001, $133,285,202,313.20 higher than it was the year before.

However I do want to compliment Bobert for actually writing some thing out and attempting to engage in a debate without nasty personal attacks atleast in that one post. Thank you for that Bobert.

"the "annual" deficit which deals with only a yearly snapshot of how an administration has done in a one year period..." was $17.9 billion the year of the mythical "surplus". It increased. If there was a surplus it would have shown up as a decrease.

Mr Firth is welcome to cut and paste anything he wants and we can discuss the factuality instead of trying to discredit it based on the source.

That is an Ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy. It is an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy, an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:17 AM

Sawzaw, you're confused. YOU'RE the one who does all the cutting and pasting.

And be careful about attempting to get into an argument about the rules of logic with me. It's one of my areas of expertise. I'll take you on anytime.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 03:30 AM

Sawzaw, before you get so snotty with people, maybe you should at least be sure you have your definitions right. Bobert mentioned the deficit. You are giving figures for the National accumulated debt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 09:42 AM

Yes, JtS... I have gone to lengths to debunk the usual cut 'n paste Republican spin machine on deficits with reality and really don't need to go thru the entire "Deficits 001" (non credit, remedial) again... It's not worth my time to rewrite it over and over because some folks either don't or won't allow themselves to take in anything that might contradict the propaganda that fills their heads...

I'd suggest to these people to check on a basic economics course at their local community colege and also tell them that they prolly won't get much out of the course if they don't remove the tin foil hats before walking into the classroom...

But here's just a quickie:

"The deficit" as defined by the Repubs = accumulated debt including all the debt that was passed onto any new president by the former one...

"Annual deficit" = Revenues - Expeditures during a fiscal (or calendar) year...

Facts:

George Bush's last annual deficit (2009*) = $1.4T

Obama's first annual budget deficit (2010) = $1.3T

in other words, Obama is the last president to cut an annual budget deficit, something, BTW that hadn't been done since Clinton and Carter before that...

(*2009 budget was in place when Obama was inaugurated in January of '09)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 11:14 AM

Oh, just a couple other little inconvenient truths for the Repubs...

While George Bush was president the debt ceiling was raised 7 times without fanfare... No one made demands on Bush to do it... It was considered "clerical" and never politicized by anyone... Sure some folks voted aganst doing it (even Obama) for their own reasons but never in a block to try to gain political leverage...

Now here's the part that the Repubs must think the American people aren't aware of... Almost all of this debt was handed off to Obama... Yup, well over 90% of this debt belongs to his predecessors... Much of it George Bush's debt for wars that he choose not to pay for but put on Master Card of China...

So for Republicans to balk at paying for their own wars makes them hypocrites and deadbeats...

That's the real story here that Tea Party Nation is more than likely clueless about and given their propensity to believe conspiracy theories over facts wouldn't believe if they were made aware of the facts...

Normal... Lots of them still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11???

Go figure???

It's no wonder that there are jobs pout there for which there are not enough educated people to fill... Educated people are moving toward the endangered species list... lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 11:37 AM

"I'll take you on anytime" I just did.

And I never accused you of any cutting and pasting. I said you are welcome to cut and paste anything you want.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 11:59 AM

Huffpo rhetoric Not fact: "the debt ceiling was raised 7 times without fanfare... No one made demands on Bush to do it... It was considered "clerical" and never politicized by anyone"

Obama Fact: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said. The Senate narrowly approved raising the limit along partisan lines, 52-48, with all Democrats opposed.

Typically, the party that controls the White House has had to take the difficult vote to raise the limit, while the other party was free to criticize. An analysis of the past 10 years of votes on the debt limit from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center shows the vote usually splits along partisan lines, with the president's party voting in support.

Now we have at least one of Bobert's secret sources for his famous "Bobert facts"

Lsssee, Dems had a majority in congress for 2007 and 2008 so they could vote down raising the limit or spending for those Bush wars so why didn't they? And why do they blame their actions on Republicans just like they did slavery?

Yup, they could have voted against the Jim Crow laws, anti lynching laws etc. along with the Republicans but?? I guess It was considered "clerical" and never politicized by anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:02 PM

"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

-- Sen. Barack Obama, March 16, 2006

Without fanfare

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:23 PM

"There is just no wiggle room. The Republicans did it."

http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

Don't hesitate to follow links to the real data.

Please check the calculations yourself using the spreadsheet.

Yes, it was Reagan and Bush 1.

Forget about Bush 2 and Obama.

If not for Reagan-Bush tax cuts and spending increases, we would not be where we are today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 02:14 PM

The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem can be phrased this way:   "What you say is wrong because you are a nincompoop," or variations thereof, such as "You are wrong because you have no education in that area."

The fallacy that Sawzaw is most frequently guilty of is the "argument from authority." "What I say is right because some 'expert' says so." Well, the "expert" himself can be wrong, even if he is an expert.

And maybe it's just me, but I generally don't regard Right-Wing blogs and web-sites (from which Sawzaw seems to have derived his education, and from which he chronically cuts and pastes) as "experts" on much of anything that relates to the REAL world.

You want to talk "logic" and "fallacies," Sawzaw? Bring it on!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 05:55 PM

Exactly, Don... But here is the kicker... Lots of these right winged bloggers are on payrolls... This is their job... They aren't here for any other reason but to spread Boss Hog's propaganda... They are hired to lie, twist, manipulate and generally spread mythology...

Corporate America sees an opportunity to take the country back to the 1890s in terms of them having their boot heel on the working man's neck and working them until they drop on the widget assembly lines... Corporate America doesn't think workers are like, ahhhh, real people... They are chattel... Like slaves... This is the grand vision of all the Boss Hogs...

What they don't get, perhaps because they have been to busy rigging the deck and stealing people lives and their labor, is history... This current crop of greedy people think that they are better than the ones that came before them... This has never worked... Never... At some point the people say "Fuck you" and go kill off enough of the kids who don't play well with other so that balance is restored...

The rich have had a 50 year run and they are at the end of the line... There really isn't anything more they can squeeze out of the American worker... The American workers wages have been stagnant for 30 years while prices and regressive taxes have gone up...

But to the righties??? They think they can pull off the trifecta and return *US* to the 1890s...

Ain't going to happen...

Like I have said... We are in a pre-revoltion period right now... The organizing of the Tea Party was a desperate attempt to hold off the inevitable and it will in the short term... In the long term it was a bad idea because the Tea Party people will come to realize what we on the left already know and that is that it ain't us on the left that are their problems, it's their masters, the Koch brothers and the Dick Armey's who want to pollute their air, poison their water, raise prices on everything, keep wages stagnant and make their health care unaffordable...

That is the real deal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:17 AM

"expert" himself can be wrong, even if he is an expert.

Oh yes but you use logic to decide. Because there is the possibility does not rule out them being right or wrong.

Your logical fallacy was that something was untrue because of the source.

Now again you are asserting that things can be proven untrue because of the source. Another logical Fallacy.

To arrive at the truth you have to argues the facts, not the source or the person.

Yet I constantly hear right wing blog or left wing blog as a reason that something is not true.

Bobert is so arrogant and in love with himself that he will not divulge the source of his "facts". He just dreams them up like his "fact" that the West Bank is the most densely populated place on earth. Or that in Haiti 1% has all the wealth.

Is Bobert right or wrong? If he has no source then he must be claiming to be the authority and I would still like to know how he determined these facts. Having never been to Haiti or the West bank he must have some access to some sort of information or he could never determine these "facts".

I go to the US treasury website and dig up historic numbers about the US deficit and I am told they came from a right wing blog where the bloggers are paid. Nobody looks, Nobody checks. Nobody cares if their information is correct or not. They are not concerned about being correct and truthful because they have an agenda. They just continue their belligerent attacks on logic in order to support their "facts" because they cannot support them otherwise.

Again, I have brought it on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 09:04 AM

Let's see if Ron can dispute these facts by simply finding the site they came from and discrediting the site rather than disproving the actual facts:

Democrats throw up a smoke screen to hide their responsibility for the deficit. They have been in control of spending since 2006 and have wholeheatedly voted for every spending bill when they could have voted them down. Now they are too untrustworthy to admit it.

Feb. 13, 2008 The first stimulus bill, H.R. 5140, became law, putting checks in the mail.         
215 House Democrats (93%) voted to add $124.4 billion to the deficit (CBO).
Senator Obama did not show up to vote.

July 30, 2008 H.R. 3221 became law, allowing the government to insure $300 billion in mortgage loans.         
227 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $24.9 billion to the deficit (CBO).
Senator Obama expressed support but did not show up to vote.

Oct. 3, 2008 H.R. 1424 became law, authorizing $700 billion for TARP.
172 House Democrats (73%) voted to bailout Wall Street with $700 billion (CBO).
Senator Obama voted for aTarp saying "It was the right thing to do."

Dec. 10, 2008 The House passed H.R. 7321 to bail out automakers. When it did not pass the Senate, the Treasury provided a bailout with very similar terms.
205 House Democrats (87%) voted to spend $16.168 billion (CBO)
With President-elect Obama's support.

Feb. 17, 2009 The stimulus bill, H.R. 1, became law, spending $787 billion on long-time Democrat priorities and pseudo tax relief for non-taxpayers.
246 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $787 billion to the deficit (CBO)
With President Obama's support.

Feb. 25, 2009 H.R. 1105 passed the House of Representatives, spending $410 billion on a pork-laden omnibus bill that gave big increases to existing government programs.
229 House Democrats (91%) voted to spend $410 billion
With President Obama's support.

Right there is over 2 trillion of the deficit, supported by the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 12:13 PM

Let's see if Ron can dispute these facts...

Ron who?

Democrats ... their responsibility for the deficit...

What facts? This is demonstrable bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 04:57 PM

tHE rEPUBLICAN BIBLE

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 08:45 PM

"Your logical fallacy was that something was untrue because of the source."

Even a strongly biased source may be right. One checks the facts themselves. But when the cut-and-paste comes from a known biased source, that's a tip-off to be extra cautious.

No, Sawzaw. I do not simply dismiss material because it comes from a Right-Wing blog. I'm a better logician than that!

You can't slither out that easily.

Read up a bit on logic before you try to instruct me about logic, and don't further embarrass yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 08:48 PM

But, Don, embarrassing one's self is what Sawz is all about... You take that from him and what's left???

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 09:22 PM

True. Sad, but true.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 04:07 AM

"There is just no wiggle room. The Republicans did it."

http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

Don't hesitate to follow links to the real data.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 08:53 AM

Yeah, George Bush ran up a $3T bill on ***our*** Bank of China Mastercard to pay for not one but two unnecessary wars of choice and now the folks who cheered the loudest and longest for "Shock 'n Awe" are saying "Not our problem"???

If this was Newark, New Jersey and someone had told my Cousin Buddy that they had changed their mind about paying for the money he had lent them then Cousin Buddy's son, P.J., would be knocking on that person's door in a matter on minutes...

The Chinese need to send a few suma wrestlers around to knock on a few doors... Like Eric Cantor's just for starters... And Michelle Bachmann next... Johnny Bonehead, Mitchie Mac and the rest of the Repubs who don't want to pay ***their*** bills...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 08:54 AM

Opps... Sorry... The above post is mine but the "membership" clickie is shut down...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 03:47 PM

Sorry Don, I accidentally referred to you as Ron.

Now, how are you disputing the facts that Democrats overwhelmingly voted for spending that increased the deficit?

If it is demonstrable bullshit (a rhetorical device), please demonstrate.

You say "Even a strongly biased source may be right." but then you use another ad hominem attacks like "slithering out"

You claim "I do not simply dismiss material because it comes from a Right-Wing blog." But then you dismiss the material.

You have presented nothing but logical fallacys while claiming being an expert. A logician. A logician is a person, such as a philosopher or mathematician, whose topic of scholarly study is logic. Are you a philosopher, a mathematician or both? Or maybe you are like Bobert who claims: First of all, I am very rarely wrong!!! No brag, just pure fact!!!

Please present some logic instead of personal attacks.

I say that because Democrats voted for the spending that raised the deficit since the 2006 election when they gained a majority, 233 seats vs 202, and could have voted against it, it is not logical to blame it on Republicans.

Democrats also could have prevented raising the debt limit. Why didn't they?


WAPO: Senate Passes Iraq War Funding Bill
March 29, 2007; 2:06 PM

The Senate today defied a White House veto threat and narrowly approved a $122 billion war spending bill that calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer.

The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) -- joining Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was prepared to blame Bush if a veto fight slows down funding from reaching the military, including billions for veterans health care and other benefits.

"If the president vetoes this bill, it is an asterisk in history," said Harry Reid after the vote today. "He sets the record of undermining the troops more than any president we've ever had."

Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) were absent from today's vote, while independent Sen. Joseph L. Lieberman (Conn.) joined Republicans in opposing the bill.

From the above it would seem that most Republicans were against the bill while all Democrats were for the bill.

Tell me what part of the deficit since 1/1/2007 did the Democrats oppose?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 04:52 PM

Go follow my link above, and go on from their to see the actual data.
The Republicans did it. "No wiggle room."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 09:17 PM

You know TIA it is funny but I see nothing on that site about the deficit run up by Carter and Clinton.

How come?

You can check the facts here where they are not "interpreted" for you.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Warning: This is only for people that can analyze facts and draw their own conclusions.

Zfacts: "The National Debt. They started building the trap [that little bit of rhetoric should be a clue] in 1982. That's when the debt started going up (national debt graph) [which actually shows "Debt Compared to National Income" instead of national debt] after 35 years of going down from it's 120% peak in 1947."

Hmmmm according to the historical data at the US Treasury the deficit was 1,142,034,000,000.00 in 1982, up from the $771,544,000,000.00 that Carter began with, and $258,286,383,108.67 in 1947

So simple math tells me that the national deficit increased by $258.3 billion from 1947 to 1962 while the website says it decreased.

The zfacts site keeps mentioning budgets but what matters is the total money that the government spends each year which has since 1947 , with the exception of 1952, always been in excess of the budget and in excess of money taken in by the government due to off budget spending.

The extra is borrowed from the Social security trust fund and other intragovernmental holdings. In addition, money is borrowed from the public and foreign investore in the form of Tbills etc. and spent also.

This did not begin in 1982.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 10:00 PM

By the way, TIA cut and pasted her "no wiggle room" from a blog
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2748703/posts

Did she look at the actual facts?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 10:36 PM

Wrong.
On several counts.
Follow the links to the actual data.
Nahh. Never mind. Take another chug of the Kool Aid instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Max
Date: 20 Jul 11 - 12:07 AM

Wow. So this is what BS threads are like? Never actually looked at one.

Sorry to interrupt this lovely highbrow intellectualism folks, but just wanted to let you know about this really weird error we've been getting lately.

Adds (provocateur) to a person's username, logs them out and won't let them log back in to that membership until they validate that the email address they used when they created their member profile is actually valid.

Strangest thing...

Well goodnight gang. Hope the weird error doesn't get you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Jul 11 - 08:08 AM

Tia:

The same no wiggle room. The Republicans did it words you posted have3 been cut and pasted in several places on the net.

I asked you if you followed the links to the actual data like you told me to do.

I did and reported what I found. Did you do the same or do you just tell people to do things that you do not do?

Did you follow my links to the actual data? I did not cut and paste them. I found them myself.

Your comment on Koolaid is a rhetorical device that does not prove or disprove anything except a propensity to use rhetoric as a substitute for logic.

All I am asking for is mutual respect and discussion of the actual facts, not personal attacks and rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jul 11 - 08:47 AM

discussion of the actual facts

Sawz, you wouldn't know an "actual fact"[as opposed to a false fact?] were it to rise up on its hind legs and bite you on the arse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jul 11 - 08:51 PM

Garbage in = garbage out = Sawz...

Normal... Just another day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM

"But, Bobert, them folks ain't got nuthin'... Shoot, if ya gave 'um anythin' then they'd just get drunk on it 'cause that's all that niggas know how to do with anything that the gov'ment sends 'um"

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 11:27 PM

"actual fact"[as opposed to a false fact?]

Please provide an example instead of your constant rhetoric, logical fallacies ad hominem attacks.

You do have some fact to present don't you?

About that remark above, it was Bobert talking to himself.

Normal... Just another day...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 11:30 PM

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be "no new deficit spending". Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending, Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker's podium. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi's first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 08:47 AM

"actual fact"[as opposed to a false fact?] Please provide an example....

And the point of trying to reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person would be what, exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 08:54 AM

Bush's last annual budget deficit was for 2009 which was in place when Obama was inaugurated came in at...

...$1.4T

Obama's first annual budget deficit for 2010 came in at...

...$1.3T

WTF???

Obama actually cut $100B in annual budget deficits with his first budget??? Say it ain't so... I mean, horrors... I mean, that ain't what the right wing bloggers are sayin'... No, they aren't... They skip right on past the inconvenient truths, twist on the numbers and go right back to "accumulated national debt" because they are trying to put the 94 cents on the dollar of national debt that Bush handed off to Obama squarely on Obama... A lot of those 94 cents on the dollar were for Bush's wars and Bush's tax cuts...

In other words, the right wing doesn't want people to know the truth...

In other words, they are being completely dishonest...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 09:02 AM

Sawzaw,

Here is most of the new spending.

"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative — a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson's bailout

Also two wars the Bush did not count in his budget.

Also the Stimulus which was a response to Mr Paulson's and Mr Bush's failures.

Also the deficit has grown since 2008 in no small part due to decreased revenue due to the recession. In fact, you said that deficit went up, but other than the bailouts and the stimulus, I can think of no new spending.

I can think of nothing on a par with the Republicans expansion of medicare entitlements or their reckless decreases in marginal tax rates.

It would have been nice if Mrs Pelosi had been able to keep her promise. But when The Republicans caught the house on fire, the Democrats had to try to but the fire out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 12:55 PM

Exactly, JtS... The Repubs and Bush had themselves a big ol' spending spree and left the bills for Obama to pay and now are trying to twist history into their usual mythology and pin the bills themselves on Obama??? But this is all the Repubs have left... They nearly collapsed the economy with their dumb-headedness so they just invent and reinvent new stories and use their massive media ownership and $$$ advantage to try to ram these new stories into folks heads... Doesn't change the fact that these stories are fictional...

94 cents of every national debt dollar was inherited by Obama... Bills that Bush and Clinton and Daddy Bush and Reagan ran up before Obama was inaugurated... Actually, it's closer to 95 cents but who is counting... The Repubs certainly aren't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: saulgoldie
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 01:06 PM

Republicans insist that government doesn't work. Then they get elected and set about to prove it. If they can cripple the government, then it can't deliver any of those nice little social programs and regulation that most people say they want. Result: return to the robber baron days of royalty and poor masses.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 01:11 PM

Voting for Republicans is like putting arsonists in the fire department.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 01:57 PM

". . . return to the robber baron days of royalty and poor masses."

Right! That becomes increasingly evident if one is paying attention. I tend to think that the ultimate goal is not only to tear up the Constitution, but to set fire to the Magna Carta as well.

All the way back to the feudal system!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Jul 11 - 05:22 PM

"big ol' spending spree" Like $3+ million turtle tunnels? Like treadmills for shrimp?

That $787 Billion ARRA was going to fix the economy as it was after whatever spending from the previous administration that the Democrats voted for but want to deny. It was going to keep unemployment below 9%
The CBO Congressional Budget Office said that in the absence of a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would rise above 9 percent.

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan report from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010.

ESTIMATES OF JOB CREATION FROM THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

As of the 4th Quarter of
2009 1.5 million
2010 3.5 million
2011 1.7 million
2012 0.3 million

Average for the Year
2009 0.7 million
2010 3.0 million
2011 2.5 million
2012 0.7 million

Gee, what happened?

Another $410 Billion Omnibus spending bill didn't fix anything either.

So now what?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 02:01 AM

"and now are trying to twist history into their usual mythology and pin the bills themselves on Obama???"

Somebody is trying to twist the fact that Democrats, since they gained the Majority in the 2006 election, either voted for or didn't vote against all of the bills that increased the national deficit including raising the debt ceiling and blame it on Republicans who had the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 02:34 AM

"new spending...Paulson's bailout"

One of these days a huge lightbulb is going to light up in the heads of the people that characterize TARP as spending will realize that Tarp money was not spent but loaned out to be paid back with interest. It was written into the legislation

Understanding TARP

For instance Wells Fargo got $25 Billion and paid it back plus $1.4 billion interest.

JP Morgan got $25 Billion and paid it back plus $1.7 billion interest.

Not all of it has been paid back yet but every time some of it is paid back the Obama administration hoots about how They have heroically gotten the money back for the American people when in actuality it has to be repaid by law.

In the legislation says the the TARP money loaned plus the interest must go into back into the treasury.

Does it go there? Or does it go into actual real spending, money that will never be returned to the treasury, on programs like cash for clunkers?

Why would it not be returned to the treasury? Because that way it goes on President Bush's tab as deficit spending by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 06:37 AM

Yeah Sawzaw? How much has been returned by AIG? Or Freddy and Fannie?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 05:11 PM

Jack, putting arsonists in the fire department
is good for jobs.


Sawz has to ignore all the bills that this Republican COngress has passed or even proposed this session.

Why?
Because there is not one job creation bill. In fact there are 3 job destorying bills. Lots of abortion bills, but no jobs.

Sure if things/economy stay bad or even get worse, a Republican President could say after 3 years, "See how much better things are now?" THis is the LImbaugh declaration.

Yes even a default is an opportunity for the rich. One could buy gold now, wait until the default scare pushes it up 10% or more and if normalcy resumes immediately sell. Default would cause massive inflation but for those 400 guys who own more than bottom 90%, they would become relatively richer. Too bad for those 401K peons.

Exculpatory facts do not penetrate the skulls of the American public.
What does is the man who yells LIAR, or a LImbaugh pronouncment or the huge giant unbeliable lie. Truth is but a victim. For these reasons the Republicans are going 'all in' in order to try to blame Obama for the ********** default.

LIE HARD,
staring the House Republicans, Produced by Right wing think Tanks, Owned by Koch and Friends. A mighty 400 production.

Example: Obama has no plan, Obama has not led, Obama should shut up and let COngress work, Obama should stay off TV, Obama is missing in action, Obama will cut your S Security despite having the money, Obama lies. Obama can not have an adult conversation, Obama veto sent us into default, Obama switched the goal posts, STOP ALL SPENDING TO SAVE THE ECOMOMY AND STOP TAXING JOB CREATORS.


jEEZ, WHEN NO ONE SPENDS, it is the definition of a recession.





but it is not working this time. 71% think the Republicans are pushing us into default.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 05:16 PM

Regarding Republicans, The unfavorable poll stands at 69%
The second highest unfavorable rating in 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jul 11 - 01:29 PM

Republicans warned about Freddy and Fannie and Democrats attacked them saying there was nothing wrong with them.

So what about them do you want to know?

I never said all of the Tarp Money was paid back. I said it was not spending.

LA Times

The Treasury Department has recovered 70% of the money distributed under the $700-billion bailout fund after American International Group paid back $6.9 billion of the money it owed.

AIG made the repayment Tuesday after selling its holdings in MetLife last week. About $59 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money still is invested in AIG.

AIG received about $125 billion in a complex, multi-step bailout from the Treasury and Federal Reserve starting in the fall of 2008. The government owns 92% of AIG after a stock-conversion deal completed in January that was part of an effort to recapitalize the insurance company and unwind the federal stake.

The Fed has about $39 billion invested in AIG. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in November that the government would lose $14 billion on the AIG bailout. But after the stock-conversion deal and a rise in AIG's stock price, the Fed and the Treasury Department have said they did not expect to lose any money.

AIG's repayment brings to $287 billion the total TARP money recovered, the Treasury Department said. Although Congress put $700 billion into the fund, the department disbursed only $411 billion.

We're optimistic that as we continue to wind down TARP, our temporary investments in private companies will ultimately result in little or no cost to taxpayers taken as a whole, said Tim Massad, the Treasury official who oversees TARP.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in November that TARP would lose $25 billion. The White House has estimated a $48-billion loss. But with potential profit from the AIG stock, which will be sold over time, the projected loss drops to $28 billion.

For taxpayers to break even on the 1.655 billion shares of AIG common stock they now own, they would need a price of $28.72 a share. Tuesday's closing price for AIG stock was $37.31.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 11 - 01:39 PM

Republicans warned about Freddy and Fannie.

Some Republicans did. So did some Democrats.
Most Republicans voted for their policies and implied guarantee, warnings or not.

Notwithstanding that. Their bailout dwarfs that of the regular banks and that was still Paulson's Bailout. Blaming that part of the debt on the Obama is pure fantasy. Likewise AIG.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Jul 11 - 09:03 PM

The current GOP stand is like saying to your wife:"If you don't stop spending o much, I won't pay the mortgage." The National Debt is money we OWE , not money we might or might not spend.