I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-28
In Reply to: Bloodiest President already.... - TechSupport
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
Well, here is my stance on the subjects.
1. Homosexual marriage: For it. If homosexual couples are afforded other freedoms, I am for this one too. If they are allowed to adopt children, they should be allowed to get legally married in the eyes of the state.
2. Welfare: Not for it. I do, however, believe in subsidies to provide help for those in need. Welfare needs an upgrade.
3. Abortion: I am for the right of choice and the right to privacy on these matters.
Hope your poll helps clarifies things for you.
Here is my stance and my reasoning
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
Joy isn't happy unless it's HER stance
on politics. She forever tries to make a laughing stock out of everyone who doesn't share her views. I think she is ridiculous and I get a kick out of her when she cracks a "supposed funny" but no one laughs. She is he11 bent on views so much, she makes me sick. I don't see where or why she is part of that program. It's supposed to be open topics, but when someone she likes it on the program, she keeps her mouth shut. I just wish she would keep it shut more often.
WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
.
Obama stance on terrorism....
This latest quote of his just says to me he doesn't get it, especially where Muslim extremists are concerned:
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
What kind of opportunities is he talking about giving them? And it does not matter what you give them...it is not about despair. I guess he did not see the poll done recently of Muslim students in London...way over half polled said it was okay to kill in the name of Islam, in fact it should be done; and way more than half thought Sharia law should be part of English law and supercede it in most cases. These Muslims are not in despair. Obama does not get it, he does not understand it, and that makes him plenty dangerous. Just like he says we cannot drill our way out of the energy crunch (and I disagree with that...might not drill our way out completely but certainly could take a bite out of our foreign oil dependance while working on those alternative forms of energy, which I do support...but there are no immediate answers there either)...we cannot talk Muslim "extremists" out of their extremism. And to think we can is naive at best and that is the nicest way I can put it.
Here's one. Palins' stance on war and peace.
nm
How is posting his stance bashing?
People are not supposed to compare the two?
OMG! Check out O's stance on immigration
Please note, these are from 2008 before the election, but I think they still hold true.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
In fact, you can also check out Emanuel, Holder, McCain, Napolitano, Clinton, here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm#Headlines
ok, here goes - I know I'll get flamed, but I am firm on my stance. SM
Well over 50% of the American population is either Hispanic or African American (I am being conservative because it is probably higher). This population IMO voted for Obama because of his skin color, without researching his view on major issues that revolve around being capable of tackling the presidency of the U.S. I think it is only a matter of time when this will come back and kick all who voted for him in the "you know what." It's not about our ethnicity or religion, but rather about a candidate who is experienced enough to tackle the job. I just cringe at the fact that someone as inexperienced as Obama is now running this country.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
It would be even funnier if it was written by the guy with the "wide stance"
what is it with those guys and airports? Larry Craig - what a twit! At least Spitzer likes women! In this economy, it's probably the only guaranteed job - and tax-free!
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
He is a moral giant to me here. sm
It is not about who won or lost, it is about the integrity of the process. I think we need this after each and every election. The electronic machines need to go. I sure hope it is not a waste of time. If they did
rig it I am sure they had a plan B in case there was a recount.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
The moral majority is neither
all that moral, or the majority. Don't assume who the majority is until they cast their vote.
Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric
Per Onelook:
▸ noun: study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking) (hmmm...yep)
▸ noun: using language effectively to please or persuade (okay, I get it)
▸ noun: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
▸ noun: loud and confused and empty talk (that's the nuts and bolts of it)
As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered.
Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it. Get over it. If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.
I think Larry Craig has the weird butt..he even has a wide stance! nm
x
Then how come so many are being found out? What was that again about moral values? nm
:
and there's the moral superiority sermon for the day
Thinks they know more than about Israel than a Israeli. BTW, Liberal nobody on the C-board sicked this person on you. The only thing I believe they referred to the C-board about was reading a post there. So before you are so presumptious about that I suggest you get your facts straight and quit seeing everything in your world as conspiracy.
Moral Treason: Who's guilty?
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
Oh, okay, McCain and Palin are not moral, but
nm
And if his moral compass was pointing sm
to true north, he would have declined representing those clients.
You can argue the difference between ethics and legal ethics till the chickens come to roost, but if this man would represent these kinds of clients and make thse kinds of oppositions, I don't think he is fit to be the second in command of the DOJ.
And there are doctors who want to do the right, moral thing.
They are the ones who care about patients and created the site where the links I posted are located.
Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric. Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done. And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do? Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes. ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
I agree Lilly, especially about the moral decline...
Child molestation is on the top of the list for moral decline.
What kind of moral teaching she had as a child is no
reflection of whether or not she has a child out of wedlock. My 18-year-old niece was raised in church, had good Christian parents and got pregnant before marriage. You can only teach a child. You can't force him or her to live by your own convictions. 
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.
I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
applies to the 21st century please?
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.
Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?
I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain? Your statement makes no sense. The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east. Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on? Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US? Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there.
Why would I care about your opinion? I don't. There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board. Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what? Most of them disagree with me on most everything. LOL
I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.
Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
and I feel like makin *du du duu du du duu* feel like maaa-k-in love to YOU!
ARGH!!
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
You take the moral high ground and watch video
nm
I so agree! And even if it was not a moral issue, what about the medical issues (sm)
that can arise? How dare someone even think of performing any procedure my child without my permission unless it is a medical emergency?
the moral majority spoke in CA but that isnt good enough
They banned it, voted against it. The state of CA spoke but the gays are not happy with that and have to march. They will push and push till they get their way. Whether it is against God or not. what a shame. 
No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.
Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.
Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,
You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!
Oh the hypocrasy!
Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric
Fox News Crosses the Line
Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters
For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.
For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."
If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.
Link below to sign petition.
Isn't the party line "good christian moral values" or something like that? sm
If they are going to espouse all that good moral values stuff, the least they could do would be to acknowledge it in their own loves. The GOP won the election (supposedly) on the stand that they would bring back all that good value bullcrap to government. So, I guess we're seeing it now, huh?
No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm
How many more lies before everyone wakes up?
Editorial Toledo Blade: Another lie on Iraq
WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.
They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.
No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.
The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.
And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.
Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.
Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.
So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.
Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Lying and the Culture of Life. What Moral Values by Junaid Alam...sm
Lying and the Culture of Life
What Moral Values?
By M. JUNAID ALAM
Strong moral values, decency, propriety, and honesty: conservatives long ago declared these ideals essential to their belief system, achieving political ascendancy with promises of restoring honor to a government they view as tainted by liberal immorality and excess.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
Barely a year into Bush's second term, the American political landscape is brimming with blatant examples of conservative deceit, dishonesty, cronyism, and hypocrisy.
Foremost among these examples is Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's right-hand man, who has been indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements before a grand jury. Not that this is cause for embarrassment among conservatives--indeed, many are relieved, pointing out that Libby is in trouble only for lying. It seems conservative standards on morality have slipped a bit.
Of course, the Libby indictment is but the tip of the beast's horn. The larger case is about a vengeful administration that was bent on destroying an undercover CIA agent's career by leaking her name because her husband, Joseph Wilson, also a CIA agent, challenged shoddy evidence buttressing the case for war in Iraq.
Let us forget for a moment the value of simple honesty. Let us forget also the importance of not undermining the nation's intelligence services when one's entire platform is national security.
What does this event tell us about the oft-invoked conservative call to respect the culture of life, so often invoked in abortion debates? Let us not pander to fools: this war was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on manifest lies and exaggerations. Therefore, can anyone seriously claim that this administration showed even the slightest respect for the lives of the 2,000 American soldiers, or the lives countless Iraqi civilians now lost to the war's horrors? Most intriguing, then, is this culture of life--a culture which champions life when it does not yet exist, and abandons it when it does.
Surely, however, could the Republican Party not redeem itself through its philosophy of Christian compassion? Apparently not. Congressional testimony two weeks ago revealed that when FEMA's sole representative in New Orleans--who was there only accidentally--found thousands of Americans stranded without food or shelter during the hurricane, he issued a desperate call for help to FEMA chief Michael Brown. Brown's aide replied--several hours later--with the following instructive example of compassionate conservatism in action: It is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. The locale of choice? Baton Rouge. Marie Antoinette would have been impressed.
Equally impressive is the Republican Party's idea of taking responsibility and not blaming others--a key conservative tenet--in the case of Tom Delay, the House majority leader indicted for pouring corporate money into Texas' 2002 state elections, which saw the reconfiguration of the state's congressional districts along even more pro-Republican lines. Censured three times in 2004 alone by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, Delay nonetheless views the indictment as a kind of vast left-wing conspiracy, calling the prosecutor an unabashed partisan zealot. Heaven forbid.
It goes without saying that Republican contrition for any of the outrages outlined above is unlikely: the arsonists are running the firehouse, and they take great pride in fanning the flames.
We would be sorely remiss, however, if we ignored the role of the Democrats in this affair. They have sat on their firehoses and idled their fire engines on key issues, enabling Republican misbehavior to go unchecked. Most Democrats, it must be remembered, voted in favor of granting Bush unprecedented war powers. And it was the liberal New York Times, with its neo-con pseudo-journalist Judith Miller at the helm, who led the drumbeat procession to invade Iraq based on the thinnest of lies.
Naïve liberal Democrats were also quite pleased to see conservatives break ranks during the Harriet Miers debacle, taking it as a sign of some kind of impending right-wing implosion. They apparently forgot the basic fact that it was the far right--not what passes for the left--that tore apart Miers' chances for judicial confirmation. Now, a staunch conservative, Alito, has been nominated and the implosion has disappeared into thin air. As usual, we can soon count on the usual centrist Democrats--those Klan-minus-costume-crats and heirs to the Dixiecrat legacy--to help vote Alito onto the bench.
Thus, while conservative wrongdoing is obvious, liberals must take a long, hard look at their own party's role in producing the present state of affairs. Americans are told, after all, that there are two major parties, and that one is supposed to act in opposition to the other.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
M. Junaid Alam, co-editor of Left Hook, can be reached at alam@lefthook.org
|
