Most non-partisan sources would not agree with you

But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't. Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists. And then who would you have left to insult?

Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years. The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden.

What is the answer to all this? I don't know. However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

St. Paul, MN � June 17, 2003 � When national Democratic leaders visit St. Paul next week, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace and other Minnesota organizations will be on the scene to question presidential candidates, raising the electoral bar for peace, justice, and environmental issues.

The Association of State Democratic Chairs and the Democratic National Committee will convene this weekend at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel at 11 East Kellogg Boulevard in St. Paul. Gearing up for the 2004 presidential elections, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace will be outside the hotel on Friday, June 20, from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m. to invite the candidates to join concerned Minnesota Democrats in dialogue about critical issues.

"People are leaving the Democratic party in droves, because in recent elections the candidates have become so centrist that they are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans," comments Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace co-founder, Anne Benson. "We want to see the Democratic party return to its progressive roots�to stand up for working people and poor people, and to fight against the regressive domestic and foreign policies of the Bush administration."

The neighbors from the Merriam Park area of St. Paul hold that in recent elections, Democratic candidates have lost their chance to take office because they've neglected the concerns of their own voters.

"It has always been said, 'There are more Democrats than Republicans; we just need to get out the vote,'" states member, Steve Schwarz. "We, however, need a reason to get out the vote. Many Democrats have felt alienated and misrepresented by the party and have looked instead to other alternatives. We believe in the principles that made the Democratic party what it was and still can be today. Remember, we in Minnesota have supported a long line of Democratic politicians who voted on principle and not on predictions of popularity. We expect our candidates to make peace and justice issues a priority."

Adds Benson, "We're encouraging candidates to ask themselves the hard questions: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Was I misled by the administration when I voted for the War Powers Resolution? How do we get out of this quagmire in Iraq? Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on too many civil liberties?"

Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace has invited all Democratic candidates to meet with them after their sessions conclude on Friday to answer a series of fourteen questions regarding issues of pre-emptive war, international relations, arms development, military spending, V.A. benefits, U.S. economy, social programs, employment, globalization, education, health care, civil liberties, terrorism, and environmental policy. They invite all Minnesotans with these concerns to join them in St. Paul on Friday in addressing the candidates.

"We're not endorsing a particular candidate," group member, Jeanne Schnitzen, notes. "We're giving them all a chance to look us in the eye and answer to the issues we vote for. If they're really in this race to turn the tides, we'll make sure they get that chance. I want to believe there is a Democratic candidate who is capable of sowing the seeds of change."

Only the conservatives on these boards fail to open their eyes and be objective when it comes to Bush and his actions. They're obviously partisan conservatives.

However, the people who continue to defend Bennett after Bush himself condemned Bennett's statement... well, there's a name for them, as well.

I think we're starting to see a divide in the conservative party. Those who just blindly follow Bush, unwilling or unable to see what's really happening, and the more sinister, dangerous, racist group who wouldn't mind seeing all black babies aborted. Those who insist on defending Bennett are emphasizing that distinction, which is a good thing. Let these people reveal themselves for what they really are.

Tillman didn't talk about why he went into the service to anyone. We will have to assume that what his mother is saying is true. Has the wife spoken out? I would think if he told his deepest heart's secrets, it would be to her. She was his high school sweetheart. Here's a snippet from a Newsweek article.

He joined the service just after a honeymoon to Bora Bora with his high-school sweetheart, Marie. He and a younger brother, Kevin, slipped off to enlist in Denver, where they could avoid publicity. Kevin, who gave up a budding minor-league baseball career, remains in the Army. Pat Tillman wanted no attention, no glory, for joining the rank and file. He didn't want to be singled out from his brothers and sisters in the military, says former Cardinals coach Dave McGinnis. Tillman apparently had made a pact with his family to stay silent about his service, a promise they have kept. They have gathered to grieve inside the comfortable family home in a leafy enclave of San Jose.

His was no simple case of patriotism; Tillman was never known as a flag-waver. His agent, Frank Bauer, told reporters he had suspected that Tillman might quit to teach or to practice law like his father, Patrick Sr., but not to join the military. Snyder, his college coach, said Tillman never used the word patriotism when he explained his plans to enlist. He just seemed to think something had to be done. When players asked why he enlisted, he didn't want to talk about it. McGinnis says there were reasons Pat said he had that he didn't want to divulge, and the coach respected his view and his right to make his own path. Tillman had always been different. When he joined the pros, he rode a bicycle to practice because he didn't own a car. He refused to buy a cell phone. A sports publicist at Arizona State once described him as a surfer dude.

It seems his mother decided the pact no longer had any merit. Personally, I see another Cindy Sheehan, disobeying her son's wishes.

WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/us/politics/24web-nagourney.html?bl&ex=1230354000&en=16a3dd67da5bac74&ei=5087%0A

I got it from blogsforjohnmccain.com. Not sure where you get your info. In fact, I don't even know how I got that story, as I'd never been to this site. Here's an interesting one, too: informationvault.com. The resources are endless. It amazes me that the so-called news stations are in business with their pathetic, identical news coverage. Judge for yourself. They always have exactly the same stuff, and the exact, same attitude.

As for FNC, that's why it constantly leaves all the rest in the dust. While I like Alan Colmes okay as a lib, his remark about Sarah was what I thought to be out of character for him after watching Hannity & Colmes all these years. I'll be writing Roger Ailes/FNC to remind them that FNC is way above those tacky networks, and that this won't be tolerated.

Susan Estrich, another FNC lib I like, has gone after the libs for what they've done to Palin. She's a fair lib. She's wrong on politics, but behaves with class while debating.

Katrina Victims Welcomed in Massachusetts

�Massachusetts will take in about 2,500 Hurricane Katrina refugees in coming days, sheltering them on Cape Cod for up to two months and likely resettling some permanently in the Bay State, Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday.

Romney said federal emergency officials told him Sunday to prepare for the evacuees, who will arrive in two to three days, and will be temporarily housed at Camp Edwards on Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod.

Otis has many amenities to accommodate the large numbers, including beds, a school, medical facilities, a gymnasium and a movie theater, he said.�

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.

Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.

Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.

Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.

Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

I believe we would be better off in the long run not to let government tinker around in our free market system. Now that they have a foothold, we will never get them out. They will infest everything from here on out. I apologize in advance for being so windy with this post, but this is something I feel strongly about.

I read a LOT of books and a lot of internet material. I stay away from the mainstream media because it is so biased and trivial that I become annoyed and scream at the TV. Once in a while I�m exposed to it accidentally and this only confirms my opinion.

I can�t link you to the source of my New Deal information. My most recent reading on this topic is: New Deal or Raw Deal? By Burton Folsom. You�ll have to hit the library. And reading this is truly �d�j� view all over again.�

All of the programs that FDR tried willy-nilly over his 12 years (3 terms) had noble stated purposes, and very bad unintended consequences. You cannot adjust a single item in our social and monetary system without it causing a cascade of effects. (And by the way, FDR was the only president to serve three terms, at the end of which is own party introduced a bill to limit presidential terms to two!)

In the earlier post I mentioned the NRA (National Recovery Act) which set wages and prices in an attempt to �put more money in the pocket of the working man.� There were higher minimum wages legally mandated for workers in various industries and higher prices set for goods to support those higher wages. The result was that smaller family-owned businesses which had competed on a local level with larger companies through lower prices could no longer do this. Their workers were willing to stay at lower wages to remain in their small towns with these small companies, but that became illegal � treasonous, even. Raising wages and prices made it impossible for the smaller companies to compete against national companies with their purchasing power and distribution systems. Defying the mandates sent men to jail. Businesses closed. Workers were put out of work, and had to move to large cities for jobs, or go on government relief. Wham! A generation of nomads and dependents.

To benefit female workers in Washington, DC, a minimum monthly salary was legislated, but it applied only to women. The result of this was that women lost their jobs to men who were willing to work for the lower wage. It was now illegal to pay these women their former lower salaries. Women were put out of work, another unintended consequence.

Tariffs on imports resulted in a drop in our export business. Then we had too much farm product being grown, not enough being sold, and prices dropping like a stone.

The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was designed to support crop prices and curb overproduction. Since we had begun taxing imports, fewer countries were buying our exports, so our farm products were rotting in the silos. The government had to destroy tons of it. So farm subsidies were instituted: If a farmer had 1000 acres, he might be offered money to take 10% of that out of production. The choice of which part of his land to designate as out of production was up to him. Most farms have wooded areas or poorly drained areas, etc. So the farmer would choose his poorest acreage - that had never grown a crop. Then he would take the subsidy money and buy fertilizer or use it to irrigate other poorly producing acreage. He would then start producing the crops that the government was guaranteeing good prices for (corn, wheat, cotton) and stop producing his other crops. Suddenly, production of corn, cotton and wheat went up, not down. And now we actually had to import some of the products which our farmers were no longer growing. The consequences were the exact opposite of the intent.

I won�t repeat all the information about the income tax. Let me just say that it is happening all over again, only FDR�s top rate was 79%, and the Obama administration wants 90% of the AGI bonuses, a cap on executive salaries. What�s next?

Excise taxes: Lets tax alcohol more, or tobacco, widgets, or electricity and gasoline to make everyone be �greener.� Taxing us for actual miles driven in our cars, what a great idea! It will be feasible as soon as everyone has a GPS tracker. I�ve heard ideas floating around about taxing internet usage, if they can figure a way to measure it

The WPA (Works Progress Administration) was another way to funnel money to supporters of the administration. If you could bring in the votes, you got to administer WPA funds in proportion to your usefulness. And in turn you could dole out jobs to those who were useful to you. This is in large part how FDR managed to get himself elected to three terms despite an unemployment rate around 20%. He controlled the money and the jobs. He had the ability to squeeze money out of any segment of society he chose. What terrible power to put in the wrong hands. Hiring and firing of WPA workers were cyclical, adding workers in the months before an election, dumping them shortly after, year after year, and it seems nobody caught on. They just agreed to vote whichever way would guarantee them a little work. And those who could not get work had to turn to the government for relief.

The ERA (Emergency Relief Act) supported by the new higher taxes had the unintended consequence of choking off the charitable contributions which had always gone to help the poor. A business owner being taxed at 79% is not feeling very charitable. So the government got to take this over, and become everyone�s benefactor. And these funds were given to governors to administer. Naturally, those states with the right sort of governor and constituency got the lion�s share of �relief.� Both the WPA and the ERA were political patronage systems pure and simple.

And let�s not forget the voter fraud in FDR�s elections. Precincts recorded as 100% for FDR, when republicans in the precinct swore they had voted against him. Precincts recording more votes than registered voters living there. Seems they had an Acorn equivalent even then.

Someone on this board asked what possible purpose this administration could have for bringing down the wealthy. The answers should be obvious. Power. Envy. Covetousness. Revenge. And that favorite word of the new administration: Greed. Got news, though, if you try to take away from me something I have worked for and earned, you are the greedy one, not I.

To some, life is a zero-sum game. The amount of �stuff� available to them is directly reduced by the amount I have. Therefore, I must give them half to level the playing field; maybe a little more than half to make up for the sins of my father and grandfather. It�s like a pie with only so many slices, and they deserve exactly what I have; it�s only fair. But life in America has never been that way. For centuries people have arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their back, taken a menial job, struggled, scrimped, persevered, and ended up owning the company. Others, who were born and raised here, feel they just can�t catch a break and wait passively for somebody else to give them the advantages they feel others have deprived them of.

So when I see this administration starting to take over businesses, cap salaries, tax �excess� profits, legislate personal behavior, and all of the other intrusions that are yet to be disclosed, I am severely creeped out. The un-level playing field is exactly what caused the striving and competition and sparked all the energy and invention this country is known for. Smooth the playing field, give everybody a trophy, and a B on their report card, and I�m not sure what we end up with, but it sure as hades (oh, for the love of pete, the language police won't let me use the other H word) won�t be America.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin

fact checking, research.....get the idea yet? Again, rumors started by a person who won't even identify themself is not fact the last time I checked.

Oh, and by the way, why is it okay for this person to stay anonymous and not okay for the source of the infamous tape you like to talk about so much?

you want to believe -- Wall Street Journal versus "websites". As the McC campaign stated ' this election will not be based on facts. They are going personality whole-hog. OMG. I just offended someone somewhere.