BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?

Subject: BS: WWRD : What Would Republicans Do?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 12:00 PM

What Would Republicans Do?

The Democrats don't seem to learn how to work the system the way the Republicans do. F'rinstance: The current flap about the Bush tax-cuts. If the Dems really wish to cut taxes for low- and middle-income folks, while restoring Clinton-era tax rates to the wealthy, the solution is very simple. Dow what the Republicans did when they passed the tax cuts ten years ago: use reconciliation (which only requires 51%) and you'd have the tax policy you want for the next decade. THat would provide a deficit reduction of some 700 billion dollars (remember that the reason given for the Bush tax cuts was that we had a surplus).

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 01:22 PM

No comments?

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:10 PM

Hi, Dick- I don't hold out much hope for the Dems actually doing anything substantive - WHY I wish I knew. They seem somehow to have gelded themselves.

Oh, for Harry Truman, FDR or Bob LaFollette, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM

"Oh, for Harry Truman, FDR or Bob LaFollette, eh?"

Amen to that!!

I was a kid during the 1930s "Great Depression," but I was fully aware of FDR being a very strong personality and one tough son of a bitch when it came to putting the unemployed (up to 25%!!) back to work and turning the economy around. No matter how loudly the Fat Cats yowled.

And although he didn't have the same God-like presence that FDR had, ole "Give-'em hell Harry" was no shrinking violet. He got things done, even if he had to walk through doors without bothering to open them.

I regard myself as being essentially in the democratic camp, but I fervently wish the Democratic Party would grow a spine!!

I remember FDR's weekly "Fireside Chats," in which he would explain in straightforward terms just exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. Or why something he was trying to do wasn't working. Often it would be who was keeping it from working. He didn't mince words.

When people are out of work and the country is in a mess (due to the incompetence and hanky-panky of previous administrations), it's no time to play "Mr. Nice Guy" with those who screwed it up in the first place. FDR knew this. Mr Obama is quite well educated, but maybe he needs to read a little more history.

When you have to solve a problem, you can't afford to try to compromise with the very people who caused the problem in the first place. Especially when they are hell-bent on stopping anything and everything you're trying to do for no reason other than that they want to see you fail!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:38 AM

"So here's the math: 98 climate scientists out of 100 will tell you that man's continued carbon emissions pose the risk of disruptive climate change this century. Two out of 100 will tell you it doesn't. And "conservatives" today tell you to bet on the two. If the climate-deniers are right—but we combat climate change anyway—we'll have slightly higher energy prices but cleaner air, more renewable energy, a stronger dollar, more innovative industries and enemies with less money. If the deniers are wrong and we do nothing, your kids will meet the sudden stop at the end.

Many of the same people working against clean energy are working to scuttle Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty that Mr. Obama signed with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. This treaty is right in line with the previous three U.S.-Russia arms reduction deals, all negotiated by G.O.P. administrations. It leaves America secure, a world and a Russia with fewer nukes and it promotes better ties with the Kremlin. Scuttling the treaty, just to deny Mr. Obama a success, which is what some Republican senators are up to, will not only ensure that U.S.-Russian relations sour, it will also make it much less likely that the Russians—whose pressure on Iran and willingness to deny it surface-to-air missiles have been critical in slowing Iran's nuclear program—will continue to cooperate with us on that front. But, hey, who cares about weakening Iran or U.S.-Russian ties if you can weaken your own president? We can fly.

Finally, there is something deeply wrong about Mitch McConnell, the Senate G.O.P. leader, saying that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." McConnell explained that that was not because Republicans simply crave power (heaven forbid), but because this is the only way Republicans can achieve their goals of repealing the health care bill, ending bailouts, cutting spending and shrinking government.

Where do I start? We know that these were not the Republican goals because they had eight years under George W. Bush to pursue them and did just the opposite. And even if we assume that this time they really mean it, they've never explained what programs they would cut and how doing that now won't make our recession worse. But even if they did, these are the wrong priorities. Our priorities now are to mitigate the recession that was set in motion under Bush and to put the country on a path to sustainable economic growth. That will require vastly improving the education and skills of our work force and enabling them with 21st-century infrastructure so they will be smarter and more productive. We know that tax cuts alone won't do that; we just had that test, too, under Bush. It requires a complex strategy for American renewal—raising some taxes, like on energy, while lowering others, like on workers and corporations; and investing in new infrastructure, schools, and research, while cutting other services."

NYT columnist

I dunno, Dick. Seems the 'Publicans would do anything if it served to stop, but I haven't seen them do much in the start department.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:09 AM

They dont fight, because they don't believe in what they say.
Just look at our "liberals", they have ditched most of their principles for a place at the cabinet table.....they are now the tools of conservatism.

That is the difference, the grass roots conservatives actually believe their own propaganda, they are confident, even evangelical about their political opinions.
The left by contrast are full of hypocrisy, especially middle class lefties. Examples of that hypocrisy are too numerous to mention, the use of private education, healthcare, etc, all to the detriment of socialist principles which they are supposed to defend, and most importantly, defence of a system which further impoverishes the poor and increases the wealth of the rich.

There is absolutely no excuse for defence of this system which is obviously in a state of decline, other than to protect the interests of the politicians themselves.

The left, even the anemic American left, cannot fight with sufficient vigor for a system they know to be corrupt and in terminal decline.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:16 AM

Real socialists would see through party politics, Mrs Palin and her supporters will have a battle on their hands to break the grip of the old guard Republicans.

Have you people anyone who can inspire the left into believing in themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:01 AM

No-one in this country confuses the middle class left with "socialist principles they are supposed to defend", Ake. The middle-class liberalism over here is predicated on building a better society, a more perfect union so to speak, on humanitarian principles, individual liberties, and as much as possible a level playing field. Our right wing is more invested in privileges and wealth, corporatism and force instead of dialogue. But both sides feel that socialism in its pure form is a losing proposition. Bth sides support private ownership. The left is more in favor of central coordination of more aspects of things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:19 AM

OK Amos, but I suppose even you would not consider these ideas "inspirational"; and how do get yourself into a position of defending both "humanitarian principles, individual liberties,alevel playing field", AND a political/econimic system which as the financial crash has shown, arbitrarily robs the people of money, jobs, and any hope of decent public services.

The folks cant eat "principles" and "liberties" even if they were real.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:07 PM

What baffles me is that the present Congress refuses to enact Obama's proposed tax changes through reconciliation. They would be perfectly justified, both legally and by precedent.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:12 PM

Greg F...oddly enough....you and I both agree on both of your posts in this thread....

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:57 PM

That's why I mentioned the level playing field, Ake. The problem with the current system is it encourages extremes of wealth, and does not defend against extremes of poverty and failure. Holes big enough to drive a truck through.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM

Yeah, I agree, Dick... But these Dems are spineless... Too eager to please and appease...

The nation cannnot afford to let that much wealth go untaxed but I can almost guarentee that the Dems won't do squat...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 01:22 AM

What would Republicans do?

Well, in general they would do these things:

1. Promise to lower taxes and cut spending.

2. Lower some taxes (specially those of the rich) and enormously INCREASE spending (mostly on the military).

3. De-regulate, further allowing the banks and corporations to eviscerate the society and destroy the dollar.

4. Increase police powers and surveillance and build more jails.

5. Execute more prisoners.

6. Screw over poor people, Blacks, Hispanics, and foreigners.

7. Launch another war or two.

8. Continue the disastrous and totally ineffective "War on Drugs" and keep all those drugs illegal, no matter what.

9. Pander to Christians in order to get more votes, while not really caring one bit for real Christian values.

10. Raise unreal fears over socialism, gay marriage, etc...


And what would the Democrats do? Well...a lot of the above, but not quite all of it. And they'd do it in a more lacklustre fashion, because they don't believe their own rhetoric as deeply as the Republicans do, and they're very afraid of looking soft on socialism, war, and getting tough with crime and drugs. ;-) In other words, they're psychologically castrated when it comes to practicing politics. The days of Harry Truman, FDR, and John Kennedy are long gone. The Democratic Party lacks the courage of its convictions, and appears afraid to do anything except by Republican Lite.

I'm not talking about individual Democrats in the population. I'm talking about the Democratic Party itself...as a political organization.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 01:41 AM

Oh, I should mention...there is at least one prominent Republican who would NOT do those many stupid things on the list I posted above. That is Ron Paul. He would end the wars, bring all the troops home, shut down the IRS, reduce taxes AND spending, close Guantanamo and all the other American bases in foreign lands, put an end to the Federal Reserve Bank, end the ludicrous War on Drugs, and basically put a stop to all the usual high level shenanigans....and then they'd kill him.

He will never be elected president, needless to say. Not a chance. He dares to unveil the Great Oz and expose the corrupt little man behind the screen, and that simply is not permitted.

Same goes for Dennis Kucinich, who is a Democrat.

They are both anathema to the ruling $ySStem, but it tolerates them as long as they remain *small* in their degree of influence on national affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 09:31 AM

Greg F...oddly enough....you and I both agree on both of your posts in this thread.... Hubby

Oh, boy - I guess I'm in serious trouble then, eh??   :>)

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:03 AM

"The days of Harry Truman, FDR, and John Kennedy are long gone."

Well, let's see...

            FDR was a foreign affairs Hawk, a fiscal Liberal and a social Liberal

            Truman was a foreign affairs Hawk, fiscal Moderate and social Moderate

            Kennedy was a foreign affairs Hawk, social Liberal and fiscal Conservative

Yep, Kennedy would not have a chance these days because too many Democrats would call him an extremist.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:27 AM

Greg - I think the reason the Democrats fail to do something actually substantive, as you had mentioned, is this: Despite posing as a supposedly "liberal" alternative to the Republicans, the Democratic Party actually serves the same imperial vested interests that the Republican Party does...those interests being,

1. the military-industrial complex
2. the major banks
3. the multi-national corporations

In other words, those with the money and the guns.

Those with the money and the guns control both the Democratic and Republican Parties. They use those 2 parties like 2 football teams to divide and conquer the American people by deluding them into the notion that they have a real democracy and a real choice, which they don't.

In order to maintain the illusion of a real choice at the polls, the Democrats and Republicans must appear superficially rather different enough from one another in various ways so that the average American will be convinced that they ARE fundamentally different from one another. Thus the myth is created that the Democratic Party is "liberal" and the Republican Party is "conservative" when they are both essentially imperial fascists serving a great military/commercial empire that lives on a constant war footing and attempts to rule the world.

They are both right of center parties by general world standards, but one of them pretends to be a tad left of center, and that's the Democrats. Given the fact that the Democrats are pretending to be something they are not, they lack the confidence in themselves that the Republicans have, because the Republicans (mostly) are unapologetic fascists, whereas the Democrats are nervous closet fascists who are pretending to be liberal progressives.

I speak, of course, of the ruling central Party structure themselves, not necessarily of all their individual supporters amongst the population, most of whom have no idea how they're being led down the garden path by those 2 parties.

The Tea Party is an instinctive gut reaction to attempt to break out of this hopeless Duopoly charade, but not a very well-informed one, I don't think.

It is necessary for the Democratic Party to fool its supporters into imagining it represents some form of liberal or progressive idealism when all it really represents are a bunch of huge corporations and banks and an aggressive imperial policy. The Republican Party doesn't have to pretend it's anything different than what it is. That gives them more confidence, because they're not so conflicted. They can also hide their naked fascism behind the convenient figleaf of *patriotism/get tough on crime/get tough on drugs*....a great recipe for getting votes from a frightened and angry electorate. The Democrats can't move into that mold so easily without appearing to become "Republican Lite", so they are at a disadvantage when it comes to marketing themselves.

Whichever one of these parties gets into power, it serves the main vested interests of the Empire, and thus it offends the world, kills Third World people, and betrays the American people. This guarantees that it will soon make itself so unpopular that it will get kicked out of office, and the other one will take over (as happened after 8 years of Bush), but very little will change other than the superficial rhetoric. The wars will continue. New wars will be planned. The middle class will be gutted. Jobs will be lost. The rich will get richer. The poor will get poorer.

This empire will fail. It has to, because it's way out of touch with reality, and it's going bankrupt. Money is the final arbiter. When empires run out of money to pay for their wars, they collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

I simply meant, pdq, that FDR, Kennedy, and Truman were confident Democrats in a time when the Democratic Party still had confidence in itself. I was not so much referring to their policies, because as you say....

FDR was a foreign affairs Hawk, a fiscal Liberal and a social Liberal

            Truman was a foreign affairs Hawk, fiscal Moderate and social Moderate

            Kennedy was a foreign affairs Hawk, social Liberal and fiscal Conservative


Yes, they were all foreign affairs Hawks! ;-) The empire does not stop being imperial. But those were the days when Democrats weren't afraid to be Democrats, because the Republicans had not yet succeeded in convincing the general public in the USA that they alone have a monopoly on the great mythical masculine attributes of patriotism/get-tough/JohnWayne/ClintEastwood cowboy bullshit that gets so many votes in America. The Democrats used to think they were tough guys too... ;-) Hell, it came naturally to them.

It doesn't anymore. That has been a triumph of political marketing, not substance...a clever bit of political marketing done by people such as Reagan's advisors and Karl Rove. They've created a vague impression in Americans' minds that the Republicans represent those mythical masculine frontier ideals, and that the Democrats don't.

It's funny, because what both of them really represent is not those frontier ideals at all, not any kind of ideal, but centralized corporate control over the government and rule by the plutocracy and the military establishment, and betrayal of your Constitution and its founders.

Fascism, in other words. An attempt to build a dominant world empire through the raw power of money and the gun.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:54 AM

Little Hawk's political mentor revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 11:58 AM

Mrs Palin has started to attack the Old Republican base, she is not as stupid as you seem to think, she knows that now they will be out to discredit and marginalise her.

Mrs Palin is a danger to the Republicans, she wants to break the old guards stranglehold....she is not a creature of the system like Obama, Hillary the Hawk, or any of the old guard Republicans...she is a strong woman! egotistical; and populist through and through.

Just the sort of person to lead your country out of the quagmire....and more importantly one who will mould herself to the will of the people to remain leader.
Her guiding principles are traditional christian values, traditional family values, is too much to ask that you support such a person?

You are crying out for change, for once in your lifetime you have the chance to break old discredited US politics and fashion a new system to work in the interesrts of the whole of America.
I agree with Hawk's assessment of Ron Paul, another populist who will give necessary guidance and Mrs Palin is shrewd enough to realise that it will be in her interests to work with other "mavericks" like Mr Kucinich.
These people are not "politicians" in the accepted sense they are the raw materials to build a new society.

You have the answer before you.....YOU are the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 12:26 PM

In a fascist corporatocracy, a plutocracy, a militocracy bent on further conquest, a one-party system posing as a 2-party system, the only people left that offer any hope of positive change are the mavericks, the outsiders, not those insiders who work within the cronyism of the established system. Since the mass media are a creature OF the established system, however, it will be very difficult for any outsiders to get the kind of media coverage they need to reach enough people to make a difference. Remember, for instance, how Dennis Kucinich was kept out of some of the televised debates in the last election? He was quite embarrassing to the Democratic insiders, because he exposed their nakedness and dishonesty.

The other Republican candidates would laugh nervously when Ron Paul pointed out that the only reason Muslim fundamentalists want to attack America is because we are messing around IN their countries where we don't belong. That was embarrassing to the Republican insiders, so they just laughed...and the newsflunkies who were asking the questions made sure not to ask Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich any question of any real substance whatsoever, but rather a question which would trivialize their candidacy in some way. They asked Dennis Kucinich about an incident where he'd seen a UFO, for God's sake! As if that has anything to do with anything in the election....! But they wanted to make him look like a nutjob, if at all possible.

That's a controlled media. Very well controlled. And it's controlled by the insiders. If you choose between mainstream Democrats or mainstream Republicans, you're just choosing more insiders. Period. Obama is an insider, albeit a very intelligent one, one who speaks brilliantly, and one who probably has some genuine ideals...but that won't change much, because he's on the inside, and he will do what he is told to do.

People who tacitly and naively submit to the blandishments of this ruling shadow government of corporates/banks/and military ARE the problem, indeed. As you say, akenaton. The politicians are merely the P.R. faces the shadow government trots out before the public, and the public is mostly fooled. The only exception to that is a maverick who doesn't spout the usual line....and doesn't get elected president, by the way. ;-) How could he or she be elected president? The funding and air time will not be made available to such people. They will be ridiculed and ignored.

Obama is no maverick. He's just a very articulate and likeable insider. He got funded to the max, because it was time for the $ySStem to change the drapes on the White House and rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. If his credibility is shot by 2012, then they'll fund some other likely insider for people to vote for.

Maybe Hillary? Maybe someone else. Maybe even Jeb Bush! (ouch!) These plutocratic families, after all, see themselves as entitled to power, just like the Royal lines did back when everyone had kings and queens. The dynasties go on and on.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 12:37 PM

How about a Little Hawk n' Ake ticket...at least we're not Americans...that must be a positive   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

Very scary idea, but at least there would be folk music in the WHite House!!

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 03:10 PM

akenaton - Ha! ;-D I would run for election in the USA if I had a death wish. I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM

There are circumstances under which I would move to Denmark.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 03:27 PM

Hell, yes. So would I, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:13 PM

Reconciliation "can only be used once per term of Congress," so the conventional wisdom goes, and was used in the Health Care Reform scramble. Now, it's actually possible to use it again, since in actuality (as opposed to the VW) it can be used once per budget, and we're now in the 2011 budget year.

However, using it now ties the hands of the Congress till the next budget year (10/1/11) (or 1/10/11, for our Cousin John Bull), and getting agreement on doing that will make it extra hard to accomplish.

As for the general question, WWRD?, we had eight years of example to answer that one.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM

Sarah "irritates" Republican leadership.

There ya go!!

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:58 AM

to the tune of what do the simple folk do


EBBIE
What do Republicans do
To help them come back when they\'re through?
The Senator who's ailing, the Alaskan who is glum
The Brightbart who is wailing from nailing his thumb
When they\'re beset and besieged
The folk not noblessly obliged
However do they manage to shed their weary lot?
Oh, what do Republicans do, we do not?

JOE
I have been informed by those who know them well
They find relief in quite a clever way
When they\'re sorely pressed, they ring Wall Street's Bell
And ringing seems to brighten up their day
And that\'s what Republicans do
So they say

EBBIE
They're ringing?

JOE
So they say


EBBIE
What do the folksingers do
To pluck up the heart and get through?
The Unions and the poor folk
Who wander to and fro
Have ways known to their own folk
The throne folk don\'t know
When all the doldrums begin
What keeps each of them in his skin?
What ancient native custom or strange herb do they grow?
Oh, what do Libral folk do?
Do you know?

JOE
Once, upon the road, I came upon a youth
and when he sang his voice was three times his size
When I asked him why, he said it's what makes him grow
And singing always made his spirits rise
And that\'s what folksingers do
I surmise

EBBIE
They sing?

JOE
I surmise

BOTH
They are ringing and singing
not watching TV
Its Joy they are bringing
Singing and strumming away
Hear them on getaways in the woods
Watch the flashes of light
The world is bright and all is right
Singing and strumming the best they could

EBBIE
But what do Republicans do?
They must have a system or two
They obviously outshine us at turning cents to wealth
And tricks a royal highness is minus from birth
What, then, I wonder, do they
To chase all the goblins away?
They have some tribal sorcery you haven\'t mentioned yet
Oh, what do right wingers do to forget?

JOE
Often, I am told, they shoot a fiery gun
And fire\'till they\'re completely uncontrolled
Soon the mind is blank and oh, they\'re in a trance
A violent trance astounding to behold
And that\'s what right wingers do
So I\'m told

EBBIE
They shoot?

JOE
So I\'m told



EBBIE
What else do the billionaires do
To help them escape when they\'re blue?

JOE
They sit around and wonder what trillionaires would do
And that\'s what billionaires do

EBBIE
(spoken)
Oh, no, really?

JOE
I have it on the best authority.

BOTH
(sung)
Yes, that\'s what Republicans do

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 04:16 PM

"In case you missed it, a story circulated around the Web on the eve of President Obama's trip that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $200 million a day — about $2 billion for the entire trip. Cooper said he felt impelled to check it out because the evening before he had had Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Republican and Tea Party favorite, on his show and had asked her where exactly Republicans will cut the budget.

Instead of giving specifics, Bachmann used her airtime to inject a phony story into the mainstream. She answered: "I think we know that just within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He's taking 2,000 people with him. He'll be renting over 870 rooms in India, and these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending."

The next night, Cooper explained that he felt compelled to trace that story back to its source, since someone had used his show to circulate it. His research, he said, found that it had originated from a quote by "an alleged Indian provincial official," from the Indian state of Maharashtra, "reported by India's Press Trust, their equivalent of our A.P. or Reuters. I say 'alleged,' provincial official," Cooper added, "because we have no idea who this person is, no name was given."

It is hard to get any more flimsy than a senior unnamed Indian official from Maharashtra talking about the cost of an Asian trip by the American president.

"It was an anonymous quote," said Cooper. "Some reporter in India wrote this article with this figure in it. No proof was given; no follow-up reporting was done. Now you'd think if a member of Congress was going to use this figure as a fact, she would want to be pretty darn sure it was accurate, right? But there hasn't been any follow-up reporting on this Indian story. The Indian article was picked up by The Drudge Report and other sites online, and it quickly made its way into conservative talk radio."

Cooper then showed the following snippets: Rush Limbaugh talking about Obama's trip: "In two days from now, he'll be in India at $200 million a day." Then Glenn Beck, on his radio show, saying: "Have you ever seen the president, ever seen the president go over for a vacation where you needed 34 warships, $2 billion — $2 billion, 34 warships. We are sending — he's traveling with 3,000 people." In Beck's rendition, the president's official state visit to India became "a vacation" accompanied by one-tenth of the U.S. Navy. Ditto the conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage. He said, "$200 million? $200 million each day on security and other aspects of this incredible royalist visit; 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents."

Cooper then added: "Again, no one really seemed to care to check the facts. For security reasons, the White House doesn't comment on logistics of presidential trips, but they have made an exception this time. He then quoted Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, as saying, "I am not going to go into how much it costs to protect the president, [but this trip] is comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad. This trip doesn't cost $200 million a day." Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said: "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy and some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."

Cooper also pointed out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire war effort in Afghanistan was costing about $190 million a day and that President Bill Clinton's 1998 trip to Africa — with 1,300 people and of roughly similar duration, cost, according to the Government Accountability Office and adjusted for inflation, "about $5.2 million a day."

When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, we have a problem. It becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues — deficit reduction, health care, taxes, energy/climate — let alone act on them. Facts, opinions and fabrications just blend together. But the carnival barkers that so dominate our public debate today are not going away — and neither is the Internet. All you can hope is that more people will do what Cooper did — so when the next crazy lie races around the world, people's first instinct will be to doubt it, not repeat it. "

---

This is from NYT columnist Thomas Friedman. He puts his finger on the exact problem with the kind of falsification so prevalent amongst certain extreme sectors. More to the right than the left, I b'leeve.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM

Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.

More than 45 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, the pay gap shockingly persists with women still earning on average 77 cents to every manÕs dollar. According to the National WomenÕs Law Center, ÒThis persistent pay gap translates to more than $10,000 in lost wages per year for the average female worker.Ó The gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women earn 61 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar a white non-Hispanic man earns.

This afternoon on MSNBC, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said it was ÒoutrageousÓ and ÒegregiousÓ that Òthese senators voted against fair pay.Ó

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:04 PM

Of course, "no one bothered to check the facts", Amos. (about the supposed $200 million a day trip costs) Political propaganda is not about FACTS! It's about creating an impression in people's minds and getting them UPSET about something (usually something that's not real). For that you don't use facts...you use rumor, suggestion, innuendo, and accusation. You might use an isolated fact or two if it's helpful to your cause in any way, while ignoring other facts that aren't helpful...but facts are not the main point in propaganda, creating the impression is...and the desired impression is created for one purpose: to generate public outrage against your political enemies, whoever they are.

When I say "your enemies" in the above passage, I am referring to the enemies of the designer of the propaganda...not to the enemies of you yourself, Amos.

The Right and the Left both do this kind of exaggerated and totally false propaganda. They do it whenever and wherever they see a chance to do it and hurt their political foes.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:06 PM

As for Rand Paul???

If we were to let him run the show the poverty rate among seniors would double or triple overnight and many would loose their homes and be out in the street... That is not just talk but the truth... Paul has at least one screw loose that is not grounded in reality...

As for the Repubs??? Nothin' would surprise me... They have been bought by Boss Hog and Boss Hog and his daddy and his grand daddy hate the New Deal... They see it as socialism... Of course, they don't give a flyin' fuck if the rich use that bought-an-paid-for government to continue the redistribution of wealth away from the working class to the rich... That is, after all, "trickle down" Reaganomics which BTW is nuthin' but stealing other peoples lives and their labor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:36 PM

Before you go praising Ron Paul so highly keep in mind that he would do away with Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, a national minimum wage and every other feature of the American safety net. As a Libertarian true believer he would do away with ALL regulation of business and industry. And anti-discrimination laws. He's a staunch believer in Laissez-faire capitalism. The Libertarian principles of isolationism and social liberalism have long appealed to college students, artistic types and for some reason many programmers I know, but a closer look exposes how truly disastrous their policies would be to minorities, the poor and the elderly.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

I most certainly don't agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul believes in. He has a radically different view of socialism than I do. But I agree with much he believes in. I think it's worthwhile to look at all the various ideas a politican puts forward and consider each one on its own merits. Ron Paul has a number of very good ideas regarding American foreign policy, the War on Drugs, the influence of the Federal Reserve, etc. I'm glad he's speaking out on those things and bringing people's attention to them.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

"I agree with Hawk's assessment of Ron Paul, another populist who will give necessary guidance and Mrs Palin is shrewd enough to realise that it will be in her interests to work with other "mavericks" like Mr Kucinich."

And BTW, saying that Palin would work with Kucinich is about as delusional as anything I've ever heard. I think I can understand why the poster who typed it is a fan of Senator Paul. It's the legal drugs, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 03:21 PM

It is easy and popular to say as LH does that "The Right and the Left both do this kind of exaggerated and totally false propaganda. They do it whenever and wherever they see a chance to do it and hurt their political foes."

But it is simply not true. In the words of Charles Kaiser:

"It is really nothing less than obscene to equate serious people like Maddow and Olbermann with dangerous clowns like Hannity and Beck.   The MSNBC anchors are, indeed, relentlessly liberal. But they are also extremely intelligent, careful with the facts, and genuinely interested in the truth.

    Hannity and Beck are none of those things. As Dana Milbank pointed out recently, during the short time Barack Obama has been president, Beck has managed "202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 mentions of fascism or fascist, and another 24 bonus mentions of Joseph Goebbels"–and most of these were directed in some form at Obama."

full text

They are not mirror images with the same MO. Definitely at opposite poles of the political spectrum, but the respect for truth and logic are just not there on the 24-7 hysterical right.

If you do not agree, please find me an example of a completely bogus, widely reported story that makes wildly false (and provably so...I am talking about facts, not opinions) accusations about a prominent conservative political figure (e.g. Sarah Palin).

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM

TIA:

Thanks for cleaving to the ground truth in the face of overwhelming gaseous emissions from the North.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 05:41 PM

Ron Paul does not want to make drugs legal. He wants to de-criminalize them. That means: don't prosecute the private user, don't attack the drug addict himself, don't persecute the casual user either. It does not mean authorizing the public sale, advertising, and marketing of drugs by profit-making entities. It would probably entail providing addicts with drugs and counseling through public medical clinics...for the precise purposes of:

1. stopping addicted people from having to resort to violent crime and theft to pay for their habit

2. helping them cope with their habit and hopefully get off it, if at all possible...in other words, treating them as people with a medical problem rather than as criminals.

I totally agree with that sane and reasonable approach to handling addictive drug problems, so I agree with Ron Paul 100% on that. It is criminalization of private drug use that has turned the War on Drugs into a counterproductive catastrophe similar to the catastrophe that was Prohibition.

Amos - Yeah, sure. ;-) Just go on comfortably believing that your cozy little incestuous in-group of political haranguers here are above such mean tactics as pointless ridicule, innuendo, gross exaggeration, and gross character assassination of people on the other side of the political divide. You're not above those things. You do them frequently, and with much glee, because you enjoy yourselves so much while you're doing it. And your mass media encourage you to do it, just like they encourage your loony opponents on the Right to do it, because that keeps you divided, mutually in contempt and hatred of one another, and that keeps the great "divide and conquer" game rolling and the great 2-party deception alive and healthy in the USA. They've got you all right where they want you. Mutual hatred. Mutual contempt. Mutual arrogance. Mutual certainty of your own rightness. Mutual unwillingness to examine your own intolerance with any real honesty. Mutual helplessness to change the corrupt status quo, because it's based on those irreconcilable divisions.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:05 PM

Excellent resume of the idiocy of the US/UK drug laws Little Hawk, but the sad fact is that the authorities and most of the population dont really care about whether addicts survive or not.
Drug addiction is viewed as "self inflicted" and people prefer to close their eyes to what is indeed a health problem.....usually with psychiatric roots.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 08:18 PM

First of all, thank you, TIA...

I am sick to death of hearing this right winged bullshit that both sides are guilty of "this or that"... That is the BIGGEST of the BIGASS LIES that the right wing has shoved down Americans throats... It is an obscene BIGASS LIE and progressives all over should stand up to it and call it every time it is uttered... Period!!!

The fact is that, yeah, MSNBC's Olberman and Maddow are biased... That cannot be argued but...

...here;s the kicker here kids... Boss Hog pays people to sit and watch them and fact check every word uttered by either of them and if one single insignificant item is found to be questionable then FOX turns it into the biggest thing that ever occurred in history and then Olberman or Maddow make a correction the following night...; Anyone who does not believe this is not a regular viewer of either of their shows...

FOX, on the other hand, not only says what ever it wants, regardless of factual qualities, but when called on it ignores the truth... That is reality here, folks...

But worse than that, our reality is that MSNBC and FOX mirror our voting public and what we have are two camps... The progressives camp is based on facts and the right winged camp is based on mythology created by FOX and their corporate bosses...

That is reality, folks...

Now as to Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich??? If you were to take two quarters and put one over the other just enough so that the one on the bottom was holding up the one on the top that the area (looking down) that they shared (that slightest sliver) would be were these tow people have common ideas... In other words, not much... One (Paul) is for holding the working man down while Boss Hog does his best "Deliverance" imitation on the working man's posterior and the other (Kucinich) is the guy trying to pull Boss Hog off while he's doing it...

That is reality, folks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 04:50 PM

obless-Benefits Bill Rejected

House Republicans torpedoed a bill to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for three months, demanding that the $12 billion cost to continue the program is offset rather than being added to the deficit. Current benefits for people unemployed more than 26 weeks are set to expire on November 30, reports The Boston Globe. Though Democrats failed to get the two-thirds majority needed to extend the benefits, they can still take a more arduous route to securing the benefits by floating the bill under regular debate rules. Most analysts say the Democrats anticipated that the bill would fail, but tried it anyway in an act of political theater guaranteed to make the Republicans look bad: "The message to four million Americans will be the Republican Party doesn't care whether you have a Christmas or a way to fund your mortgage or a way to put food on the table for the next three months," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington).

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

"Rand Paul"??? I was not talking about Rand Paul, Bobert.

I'm not a regular viewer of any TV show. The attitudes of knee-jerk prejudice on both the Right and the Left that I was primarily talking about are those attitudes expressed HERE daily by the political zealots of both the Right and the Left who post endlessly on this forum and attack each other.

Mostly just a bunch of soreheads and internet addicts venting, as far as I'm concerned, but it's kind of funny watching you piss each other off day after day to absolutely no useful purpose. Sort of like watching roller derby or something along that line. It's cheap entertainment, and it gives me something to do myself in those idle moments when I forget to do more useful things....same as the rest of you. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 10:36 PM

GEt a life, LH. Some of these issues are both real and earnest, and the fact that you find it all just too specious and self-serving no matter which side of what issue is being discussed indicates you are disengaged and treating the whole thing as a cloud of abstruse significance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:32 PM

"In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income - more than the bottom 50 percent. Not enough! The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Not enough! The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Not enough! The Wall Street executives with their obscene compensation packages now earn more than they did before we bailed them out. Not enough! With the middle class collapsing and the rich getting much richer, the United States now has, by far, the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth. Not enough!

The very rich want more, more and more and they are prepared to dismantle the existing political and social order to get it. During the last campaign, as a result of the (Republican) Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, billionaires were able to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of secret money into the campaign - helping to elect dozens of members of Congress. Now, having made their investment, they want their congressional employees to produce. Republicans in Congress, needless to say, are all on board. The key question is whether a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate go along to get along, or whether they draw a clear line at protecting the interests of the middle class and vulnerable populations of our country while tackling our economic and budgetary problems in earnest."...

..."The billionaires and their supporters in Congress are hell-bent on taking us back to the 1920s, and eliminating all traces of social legislation designed to protect working families, the elderly, children and the disabled. No "social contract" for them. They want it all.

They want to privatize or dismantle Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and let the elderly, the sick and the poor fend for themselves.

They want to expand our disastrous trade policies so that corporations can continue throwing American workers out on the street as they outsource jobs to China and other low-wage countries. Some also want to eliminate the minimum wage so that American workers can have the "freedom" to work for $3.00 an hour.

They want to eliminate or cut severely the U.S. Department of Education, making it harder for working class kids to get a decent education, childcare or the help they need to go to college.

They want to rescind the very modest financial reform bill passed last year so that the crooks on Wall Street can continue to engage in all of the reckless behavior that has been so devastating to our economy.

They want to curtail the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy so that Exxon-Mobil can remain the most profitable corporation in world history, while oil and coal companies continue to pollute our air and water."...

Senator B. Sanders, "Now is the Time to Roll Back this Orgy of Greed"

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:07 PM

"They want to expand our disastrous trade policies so that corporations can continue throwing American workers out on the street as they outsource jobs to China and other low-wage countries. Some also want to eliminate the minimum wage so that American workers can have the "freedom" to work for $3.00 an hour."

Amos, it is not the political parties who determine how competitive a nation is, but the system itself.
Do you seriously consider that we can compete with India and China in a capitalist system and retain the standard of living and public sevices to which some of us have become accustomed?

Dont you realise what is about to happen? the old tweaking of the economy will be completely ineffective...as far as we are concerned, the political parties have become redundant.

Why bother fighting each other when there is nothing left to share
Instead we should be fighting a system which drains the lifeblood from a nation, then moves on to new exploitations, leaving its host to rot.

Subject: RE: BS: WWRD What Would Republicans Do?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM

Exactly, Amos...

Some folks here do more than just piss and moan about the complete hypocrisy that is the Repub/conservative(?) side... I mean, they say that all politics is local and over the last few decades I have always been involved in some community project... Plus I have worked the polls and pounded on doors for candidates... That gives me the "right" to come here and make the observations that I make...

As for Ron Paul??? He's no different from the son... Other than being against the war, he would kill Social Security and Medicare in a heartbeat... I mean, if it was in his power it would be gone tomorrow...

These two people do not live in the real world... The US has seen 30 years of Reaganomics... That's another term for "free market"... The problem is that there is n ot such thing as a free market... The reality is that we are in a global economy and other are using tariffs, currency manipulation, subsidies, etc., etc. to compete... If the US is not willing to play at that level then it just needs to pack it's marbles, build a big wall around itself and cut off all trade and communication with the rest of the world...

Free market, my butt!!!

It is a bogus market with corporations trumping mom and pop because they have the power to do so and the legislation and tax loopholes that make it easy... There is nothin' free about the US markets... They are all corrupted so for anyone to talk about free markets all they really mean is, "We got ours and you ain't gonna get none of it"... That ain't free...

You want free market then move to the moon...

But that is what Daddy and Son Paul want... More corruption and more hands off the crooks...

Fuck the crooks!!! They are out to poison our water, foul our air and exploit the working class...

Giving them anything more, like no regs, is like inviting the fox to guard the hen house ***from the inside***...

B~