BS: The Republicans (US)

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.