The 'New Democracy' is what The Shining Path (Communist Party of Peru), New People's Army (Communisty Party of the Philippines), and the Maoists (Communist Party of India) are calling their cultural revolution, right?
You know, the revolution where they tried to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat through such 'democratic' things as terrorism against peasants and union workers and other 'dissidents' in their own countries?
And I'm sure you know that the goal of the 'New Democracy' is to induce a world-wide revolution as a path to what they call 'pure' communism?
You know all that, right?
Otherwise, your statement about dragging Americans 'kicking and screaming into the new democracy' would just sound uneducated and silly.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Here's a prediction of what may happen in Cuba. Note how Cubans feel regarding healthcare and education in Cuba, something Americans are in no immediate danger of experiencing from our so-called free government.
so what is democracy to you...
you are in favor of letting money then run this country, to do freely anything it wants - not sure I get that at all in fact that sounds more like socialism to me - this attitude sent down from the rich that we should just be 'lucky to have jobs' and how only the poor and middleclass should suffer, you know, for the benefit of the country - we are the only ones sacrificing.
Not getting that at all...
What is in it for me, what have the rich corporations done for me, please tell me, how am I better off now.
I could sit here all day typing the problems I have right now financially, so please share how great things are now that only the poor and middle class are carrying the burdens for roadwork, childcare (you know, schools feeding kids breakfast, lunch, and even dinner most places because we dump our kids there and leave them), I could just go on and on and on...
This is the history of democracy:
Athens
450 - 500 BCE
"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericles' view of democracy
Evolution of Democracy
Democracy in Greece was first introduced in Athens in the 505 BCE by Cleisthenes. Previous to democracy Greek city-states were ruled by a an elite few, rich, powerful men, known as tyrants. This Oligarchy limited the power to very few people. Democracy was a government structured to serve the people. All white, male citizens had the right to vote under a democratic democracy. Unlike present democracy, citizens would convine and openly discuss and vote for elections. This type of democracy is called direct democracy. As a society it benefited the majority, which were the middle and lower classes. The middle and lower classes received a voice , giving them power. The upper class, aristrocrats, lost power through a democratic government. They no longer received more power because of thier social standing.
I try not to be nasty on this board, but I just can't believe how many people are wanting the demise of democracy and, with open arms, are accepting everything the democrats state as truth. The demise of the 2-party system will only lead to socialism or something worse. Are you ready for that?
After the town meeting in MO yesterday, I honestly believe O has blinders on. He still doesn't know why the tea parties were held. He is relying on someone to give him an accounting of why and he is going along with that. He doesn't realize that was not what the protest was about. Maybe he should have gone to one of the parties to see the truth. But no, he'll rely on others for the not-so-much-truth.
Same with the economy. How much has changed? Not much. Yet he thinks it's getting better. Well, I don't see it happening. Unemployment higher, Chrysler claiming bankruptcy, GM soon to follow. Banks still not lending. CEOs still taking their bonuses; i.e., business and politics as usual.
Sure, it's only 100 days, but for the debt we now have to shoulder, how does it get paid back when the government refuses to take payment from the banks that wanted to pay off their debt? This government WANTS to control and own all business and banking institutions, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Yesterday, DH applied for SS since he doesn't believe it will be there in a few years, so for the 40-some years he worked and paid into the system, he wants to get something back and, anyway, there is no work for him. So far this year, he worked 15 days. Son still can't find a job after a year. Yeah, there are jobs out there. NOT!
Bush was correct in saying Monday night that “Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War.” Unfortunately, it’s Bush’s administration that is testing us—with its relentless incompetence, attacks on our civil liberties and inability to acknowledge the bankruptcy of its policies.
If representative government were alive and well in America, President Bush would not have dared to give the speech he made Monday on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. In a blatantly partisan screed, the president ripped off a nation’s mourning for the 9/11 victims in order to justify his totally unrelated and disastrous invasion of Iraq.
The president’s shameless remarks on this solemn occasion were so rife with egregious distortions of fact and logic as to beg ridicule, let alone refutation by a free press, a sturdy political opposition party and an informed public. Sadly, those three essential pillars of a free society have been subverted by five years of willful presidential exploitation of our fears, mocking the Founding Fathers’ historic dream of a government accountable to the public.
The model for this administration is the opposite of Jeffersonian democracy, and instead increasingly invites comparison with the madness that destroyed Rome, Germany and the Soviet Union: Authoritarianism that thrives on stoking paralyzing fear of the barbarians at the gate. “We are in a war that will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world,” Bush said, justifying his Iraq quagmire while sidestepping the fact that Islamic extremism, as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers, was most clearly nurtured by Saudi Arabia, the bizarre oil theocracy with intimate ties to the Bush dynasty, but not former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
“Since the horror of 9/11, we’ve learned a great deal about the enemy,” continued the president. “We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam.” But if such a network exists, it now extends to Iraq only as a result of the U.S. invasion.
“We have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations,” Bush said. Tragically, he is describing quite accurately the situation in most of post-invasion Iraq, where his great “shock-and-awe” attempt at nation-building has turned a stable secular dictatorship into a post-apocalyptic civil war, where only religious extremists and power-mad nihilists thrive.
In urging us to join him at the barricades of what he calls “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation,” Bush cynically conflates Hussein with that deposed dictator’s sworn enemy, the religious fanatics of Al Qaeda, mere days after the Republican-run Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established yet again that the two were fundamentally at odds.
Hussein, the Senate committee announced Friday, “did not trust Al Qaeda or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them.”
In fact, Hussein was exactly the kind of regional strongman the United States supported, trained and propped up throughout the Cold War. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then working for President Ronald Reagan, even infamously embraced Hussein in the ’80s because his Iraq was considered a bulwark against fundamentalist revolutionary Iran.
Now we have all but handed post-Hussein Iraq to Shiite fundamentalists trained by and allied with the Iran of the ayatollahs. On Monday, the prime minister of “liberated” Iraq, who spent years in exile under the tutelage of Iran’s ayatollahs, was back in Tehran concluding agreements on mutual security with the leader of that “rogue regime.” How bizarre that Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a country that did not have a functioning WMD program, has vastly increased the power of Iran, which, according to Bush, does. Sometimes, by accident, Bush gets it close to right. “Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War,” he said. Unfortunately, it is his administration that is testing us with its relentless incompetence, attacks on our civil liberties and inability to acknowledge the bankruptcy of its policies. The more his deadly failures have become evident, the shriller the rhetoric and the more his administration digs in its heels.
Peel back the lies and hyperbole from Bush’s speech and you are left with one pressing concern: If this “war on terror” is really so important to the worldwide battle for freedom, why have we allowed this democracy-mocking demagogue to lead us through it?
I don't think every American wants democracy. sm
In fact, I know they don't. There are more than a few Americans who think we deserved 9/11. Nancy Pelosi is one of them. Now look where she is.
isn't democracy grand?
Yes, Chele, your comparison is kind of like how 50 million of us who voted for the other guys have had to put up with Bush for 8 years...that's democracy for you. Maybe you are the one who needs to wise up.
It is called Democracy.
Of course it is okay for the majority to elect whomever they want. Your post sounds like a case of Republican sour grapes to me.
It is the way of a democracy. I keep in touch with my senators and one...sm
lone representative. I pay attention to whether they vote in my best interest and are honest in their dealings and let them know if I disagree, and vote or not vote for them in the next election. You are naive if you think that democrats are solely responsible for this meltdown. Looking for the other party to blame is counterproductive and will help no one. Money hungry greed is what has led us to this and both parties are to blame.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
how in the world can we dictate what they do with their prisoners? You have to take a wider view of this bill. It is nothing like what you have presented here. It's a bill about democracy and a democratic nation.
Bush/Saakashvili alliance is not about democracy.
It's not rocket science. Even a 5-minute superficial read of the history of the pipeline and the below-the-radar placement of US troops in Georgia makes that abundantly clear.
Democracy Obama-style! Great post. Thanks.
.
For many reasons, the fact that Israel is a successful democracy
in the midst of tyrannical middle eastern governments. The fact that the U.S. supports Israel. The fact that Israel has turned their once arid country into a fertile landscape and have managed to become a wealthy nation despite it's geographical short-comings and to the dismay of their neighbors. Also because the palestinians have managed to paint themselves as the underdog in a battle that has long been a land dispute and not an "occupation." And I have even begun to touch on the religious and scriptural reasons for the hatred.
Oh dear...
I appreciate your time spent on the Chomsky quotes, however, they are out of context from the overall essay. Some do seem a bit inflammatory, but I must admit I see the truth in a great many of them. The US can be a great and noble country, but it often isn't and hasn't been.
Your last paragraph I don't understand - but I have grown tired and have to finish my evening's typing.
Bin Laden isn't dead. If he were dead, enlarged, beautifully matted and gold-framed photos of his bloody corpse would have been shown repeatedly on every television screen in the world.
Does it make sense, in your warped world, to go after the man who had NOTHING to do with 9/11 while ignoring the one who WAS responsible for it? By the way, have you heard? The Taliban has strengthened. You have your president to thank for that.
But don't worry about another terra attack. Ain't gonna happen. Bush has repeatedly said he is the only one who can keep us safe. Wouldn't be prudent to have another terra attack before he leaves office.
not quite dear
That is the complete opposite for me. I got to keep more of my money under Bush, plain and simple. And sorry my vote is not bought and paid for. That is ignorant to even say considering people are trying to "scare" me to vote for Obama because the tax breaks won't affect poor pitiful me. I get so sick of all the W bashing going on. I shudder to think of where we would be today if Kerry or Gore had won the presidency.
Sam, I can do you one better on dear
This was a quote he made back in 2003 -
‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’
You know what they say about lying down with dogs......well, he was romantically involved with a dog, uh, I mean, executive from Fannie Mae.....
If I were him I sure wouldn't want my face plastered on any newscast anymore.
And you, my dear, get an "F"....sm
Work it out for yourself.
my dear you need a
run for mayor or something
No dear, it's not..........
Our local police department has it in their little hands!!! BIL is assistance police chief and he DOES have it and I have seen it......... Even the local police here are puzzled as to why in the heck "conservative" is the title of the document...THEY KNOW IT IS A TARGET OF CONSERVATIVES.....too bad you don't have a clue or you should be very upset and concerned.
Furthermore, all receiving it was told to not let the GENERAL public see it even though they have every right to see it and our police dept is breaking absolutely no laws by letting the public see it....
It is a PUBLIC document!!
Okay dear....
I provided proof that he SAYS he is a Christian...then I went on to say BUT he doesn't act like one...hence the "you will know a tree by the fruit it bears"
Never mentioned anything about him being a Muslim, more than likely he is one of those hypocritical "Christians" who sits in church (Jeremiah Wright's for 20 years if you want to bring out skeletons) and gives lip service but in the end he's going to do what furthers himself.
Christians are called to glorify God in all that they do and to further God's kingdom. By killing what God says is good (children) and promoting what God says is an abomination (gay marriage) he is definitely not doing that.
Which leads me to the conclusion that he is not a true Christian!
The bottom line is that no matter how uncomfortable waterboarding is, terrorists do not fall under protection of the Geneva Convention. Also, Pelosi was briefed on this type of interrogation and her story is fastly crumbling apart. The only reason I want them to go after Pelosi is to show that the dems knew about this too and didn't seem to have a problem until now. Just like a lot of dems didn't have a problem with going to war in Iraq until now.
As for Hannity...if the best rebuttal you have is that we shouldn't waterboard terrorists because Sean Hannity won't do it for charity.....well....our conversation is done here.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
So it's all right to do what's necessary to save one life, but not a much LESS harmful action (we do it to our own troops) in order to save thousands.
Nothing more can be said to someone who thinks this way except that I'm glad you're not teaching logic anywhere - or is there a Liberal Academy of Doublespeak somewhere that I don't know about?
Whatever you say..dear...
--
Dear Anon. SM
This site is no more being hijacked than the conservative board was some time back. Most of us have stayed on one board or the other. sm has offered to stay on the conservative board from now on, but was told she need not. Which is it, pray tell? As for me, I post here rarely and usually in respons to something quite specific. After this post, I will not venture here again. I do indeed hope this makes you all happy.
Dear Laughing A**. SM
I mean a collective you, as in the same mindset, much as you are.
Dear Red States
Dear Red States...
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their death for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce,
92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
And one of the other voices in your head has already judged me and declared that the Rapture will pass me by, which is fine with me. Would prefer to spend eternity with those who are nice, loving, kind and HAPPY.
General Giap of the North Vietnamese army wrote his memoirs after the war. He posted that the antiwar movement in the United States gave the North Vietnamese hope after Tet, when they were decimated and ready to surrender. It gave them hope, prolonged the war, and eventually led to our precipitous departure. No, I am afraid you are wrong about your facts. Here's the post from the 1st Cav.
Tet Offensive -- Monica what are the cause and effects of the TET offensive? and who won this campaign? I don't really get this event! can someone tell me the story in a easier version? I am in the 9th Grade. Monica,
Here is an answer to a very complex question. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was an initiative of the North Vietnam Army to have the civilian population of South Vietnam join them in their offensive and efforts to overthrow the South Vietnam Government, forcing the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces.
The Tet Offensive of 1968 was conceived by General Giap, commander of the North Vietnam Army and his staff. General Giap earlier in his career planned and executed the battle at Dien Bien Phu which drove the French out of Vietnam in 1954. During the battle of Dien Bien Phu, General Giap stated he was willing to lose 10 men for every 1 enemy soldier killed, which indicated that a person's life in Vietnam was cheap.
By the end of 1966, North Vietnam had suffered large causalities in manpower and supplies through the bombing of the North and the fighting in the South. They consider the war was at a stalemate. North Vietnam would need a major victory if they would continue on with the war. Thus the planning for what is known as the Tet Offensive began with General Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) and his staff.
The battle of Khe Sanh (Jan. 21, 1968) was the prelude to the Tet Offensive of January 31, 1968. The battle at Khe Sanh was similar to that of Dien Bien Phu in which the Vietnamese had surrounded their enemy and cut off all land routes for supplies and evacuation. Khe Sanh had two objectives besides the obvious objective in defeating the Marines.
1. Diversionary tactic to draw American attention away from the cities of South Vietnam and more towards Khe Sanh.
2. Remind the people of South Vietnam of another battle that took place 14 years earlier at Dien Bien Phu, which would encourage South Vietnamese to join the VC in throwing out the Americans as they did with the French.
The North Vietnamese Army fought the battle at Khe Sanh and the National Liberation Front (VC) fought the Tet Offensive, which attacked the cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam.
It should be noted that NVA units who were not participating in the Khe Sanh siege supported the VC in their attacks on the cities during the Tet Offensive.
National Liberation Front - (Also Known As) Viet Cong or VC were comprised of South Vietnamese civilians and North Vietnamese advisors who lived in the cities and villages throughout South Vietnam. They were part of the North Vietnamese forces in reuniting the two countries as one.
A cease-fire began on January 30, 1968 for the Vietnamese new year of Tet, which falls on the first new moon of January. On January 31, 1968 the Viet Cong broke their cease-fire and attacked many cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam. In Saigon, a small number of VC (19) were able to reach the American Embassy grounds, but did not gain entry into the embassy itself.
In the Northern part of South Vietnam, the city of Hue was taken over by the V.C. and executions of city officials and their families took place. The initial reporting indicated the number of people executed was in the thousands (2,300 persons executed in and around Hue during Tet 68 - Time Magazine 31 Oct 69).
Saigon was the center for most if not all of the news agencies that were covering the war in South Vietnam. Tet offensive of 1968 was the first time, during the war, that actual street fighting took place in the major cities. Rear support personnel and MP’s did the initial fighting by American troops until support from infantry and armor could arrive. These men did an outstanding job in defending the cities, airfields and bases along with the embassy. The news media were able to capture this street fighting on tape in addition to the attack on the American Embassy. This new offensive was immediately brought into the homes of American families through reporting by television and the press. The sensationalism of this reporting brought forth a misrepresentation of the actual facts that took place during the Tet Offensive of 1968. The reports led the American people to think that we were losing the war in Vietnam and that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for North Vietnam. This was not the case. The VC suffered such high casualties that they were no longer considered a fighting force and their ranks would have to be replaced by North Vietnamese regulars. The civilian population of South Vietnam was indifferent to both the current regime in South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The civilian population, for the most part, did not join with the VC during the Tet Offensive.
The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded It was essential to our strategy, referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. Mr. Tin surmised, America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.
The military defeat of North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968 became a political victory for North Vietnam because of anti-war demonstrations and the sensationalism of the news media. The North Vietnamese interpreted the U.S. reaction to these events as the weakening of America's resolve to win the war. The North Vietnamese believed that victory could be theirs, if they stayed their course.
From 1969 until the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win. The sensationalism by the American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet Offensive gave hope to Communist North Vietnam, strengthening their belief that their will to succeed was greater than ours. Instead of seeking a successful resolution at the Paris Peace Conference following the disastrous defeat of the 1968 Tet Offensive, they employed delay tactics as another tool to inflame U.S. politics. This delaying tactic spurned further anti-war demonstrations. Those who sensationalized their reporting of the war and those who supported anti-war demonstrations are guilty of giving our enemy hope. Because of their actions, they must share partial responsibility for those 20,000 + Americans deaths.
We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college campuses and in the city streets.
Dear Girlfriend(s)
Now if someone would have just blown Bush say....6 or 7 years ago, we could be rid of him already. If I wasn't such a big homo, I'd have volunteered myself.
Nite Gracie.
Dear whoever....it would help cut to the chase...
if you would vet (since you were so concerned with vetting) the information BEFORE you post it instead of assuming if it is negative it by golly must be true. But the truth is not what you are interested in. This post proves that. So just admit it. Doesn't matter if it is true or not...you aren't interested in the truth. About your candidate or the other one.
Sigh.
Dear Car Czar.....sm
Interesting perspective on buying a new car. I particularly like the very last line......
Washington, D.C. — To Whom It May Concern:
Forgive the ambiguity of the salutation — I didn't know whether to address this missive to Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and "Dear Car Czar" just sounded so, well, tacky.
Let's cut to the chase: I need a new car. I'm not asking for a bailout or anything like that. I just need some good advice and I am hoping one or all of you can help. Here are the facts:
First, we only buy American cars in my family. My Dad fought in World War II and I've always been afraid he would rise up out of the grave and haunt me if I bought one of those Japanese or German machines. Perhaps you can recommend a pill or some kind of counseling for this problem.
I'm currently driving an 8-year-old Oldsmobile and the odometer is pushing a quarter of a million miles. Yes, I know that makes me part of the problem. I just don't buy cars often enough because we don't buy things we can't afford. Silly, I know, but after 40 years of marriage, we're kind of stuck in our ways.
If it makes any difference, in my family we also have a Chrysler PT Cruiser and a Ford truck. They're all paid for so I guess we don't qualify for federal help in paying them off. And that gets me back to the big question: What kind of car should I get?
During my career, I've driven Jeeps, Humvees and even a few tanks. I once owned a Shelby Cobra, but we traded it for a station wagon when we started having kids. My wife suggested that given my advanced age and the sad state of our economy, I should get a Winnebago. She says that way, if the bank forecloses on our home, at least we would have a place to live.
I can't get a new Oldsmobile (is that an oxymoron?) because GM doesn't make them anymore. Now, Speaker Pelosi says that she "hopes that there will be a viable automotive industry in our country" after the first quarter of next year. "Hopes?" I'm shopping in Virginia. Where is Hope?
In the past when I shopped for a new car, I asked friends about their recent purchases, read newspaper advertisements, paid attention to television or radio commercials and picked up "Car and Driver." After compiling what Washingtonians call a "short list," I consulted "Consumer Reports" to determine how my choices ranked against similar autos. Then I bought what I could afford from a dealer I trusted.
Given what happened on Capitol Hill this week, it's clear that my "old fashioned" way of car shopping is hopelessly outdated. Today's experts on the automobile that's best for my family and me are the members of Congress. (Please note that this acknowledgement is not meant as a slight to President-elect Barack Obama — known in our house as PEBO. During the recent presidential campaign, PEBO admonished us all to "keep our tires properly inflated." Thank you for the tip.)
PEBO's help notwithstanding, the recent congressional hearings raised questions I had never thought to ask when car shopping. For example, Senator Chuck Schumer told auto executives that it is "unacceptable," to continue building cars with internal combustion engines and that I should be able to buy a "plug-in hybrid electric car." Does Mr. Schumer know of such a car I can afford that will allow me to make my daily, 150-mile round trip commute? If I don't make it home, will he give me a ride?
Can you give me a hint as to which of the "Big Three" car companies Congress will allow to survive? Will you permit the dealer where I purchase a car to stay in business? Should I get the extended warranty?
While driving, I listen to talk radio and would like to have satellite radio installed, but not if Congress is going to insist on the "Fairness Doctrine." Will you?
If I get the tow-package will Senator Chris Dodd accuse me of owning an "inefficient, gas guzzling" vehicle and dismissing "the threat of global warming?"
If I put down a minimal deposit at the time of purchase, then wait a few months and default on my loan, will the federal government bail me out? Since the feds will own the automakers, should I call the Department of Transportation or the "Car Czar" when I need a tune up?
The best solution for my problem is to have a member of Congress join me while I hunt for a new car. Hopefully the member you assign can "kick the tires" and answer some of these questions — and one other:
Congress has insisted that auto company executives achieve performance standards or be financially penalized. The CEOs of Chrysler, Ford and GM are all working for $1 per year. Shouldn't congressional pay be adjusted the same way?
— Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465524,00.html
Dear Mr. Obama...................sm
Watch the whole video from this courageous young man....and two of the comments from the poster on youtube
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
weneedmccain (6 days ago)
One final comment. Some have suggested that the McCain Campaign paid for this ad. Nothing could be further from the truth.
McCain would never use soldiers for political gain. He has honored them, but he will not use them.
Unlike the Obama who has used Tammy Duckworth to score political points. McCain has such reverance and respect for our military men and women, he would never use them as political posters.
Nuff said.
=======
We have over 700 comments posted now, and approving each one has been laborous and intersting.
I promised this man's father I would ensure that no disrepectful posts would be approved. I have kept my word.
But I have more commercials on the issues I want to create so I have to shut down the comments section.
In all, about 75% of the comments were positive and supportive, 15% were disagreeing but respectful, and 10% were ugly, demeaning, rude, and hateful. So much for HOPE.
My dear, you will not be paying any
more taxes than they paid in the 1990s, and I can't feel sorry for you. 250K is a lot of money. Our country is under seige by big business, and you feel sorry for yourself that you might have to pay your fair share. My DH and I work our butts off for 60K a year, and we pay 20% to 25% in taxes, but we don't whine about it. However, it would be nice to get a break.
Sorry dear to disappoint you but I'm not a
xx
Dear Mr. Obama...
Has anyone see this video yet??
No dear.....not talking about you
Racist remarks are how you perceive them. Depending on the color of your skin, perhaps others saw comments made toward them as racist but they weren't calling for the moderator. Mrs. M has not been above name calling on this board tonight but she claims to be. In her mind, she has said nothing derrogatory but in others' minds, perhaps she did.
Dear Mr Obama
Wait till you see when it gets to 1:19 minutes...
Whateer you say, dear.
x
dear ditzil
You have been insulting all morning long to anyone with the misfortune of responding to you. Why is it okay for you and not others?
I'm sure you'll think up an appropriate comeback to mine, as well.
But think on this.
I'm not a conservative, just hate to see libs do what you're doing.
As one poster said already, you are giving us a bad name.
Please think before you post.
You are a bit confused, dear.
I also bike, so spare me your suggestions, especially since it is quite evident that it has not really done a whole lot in the way of relieving your frustrations. You might want to bump it up. Perhaps you could try doubling your current schedule. It might start to make a dent in all that resentment you exude.
I'm not the sm who posted the article or ditzil (both of whose posts contained nothing but upbeat sentiment) which YOU decided to take issue with (and in your next breath are now trying to promote "positivity.") When you got all snippy, ditzil called you on it in no uncertain terms, with which I agree with because she described the tone of your post most accurately as sounding profoundly miserable and alienated. I simply chimed in to lend her my support and did not start anything here. In fact, you might want to look at the thread and notice it did not turn south until you showed up.
Your third paragraph has confirmed what I originally suspected. You sounded rather disingenuous in your other post when trying to claim to be supportive of Obama "for all the right reasons." My post to you has nothing to do with "whirling," little to do with your opinion and everything to do with your stinky attitude, so your attempts to belittle "crats" is a nonsequiter.
Your fixation on the chili dogs and cheesey fries perhaps can be explained by some unrequited calorie envy you harbor as you maintain that svelte 118-pound perfect bod. It certainly would explain why you are in such a bad mood. In any case, the point of the OP, ditzil and some of the posts that appear below was to talk about the difference between O and W, i.e., getting down with the public versus keeping above the fray of the hoi-polloi and the relief they feel to have a Prez who is more down-to-earth.
Guess you are just one of those folks who would rather gnash your teeth and regurgitate a whole bunch of ugly than to try to follow a thread and understand what the posters are really trying to say.
You are a bit confused, dear.
I also bike, so spare me your suggestions, especially since it is quite evident that it has not really done a whole lot in the way of relieving your frustrations. You might want to bump it up. Perhaps you could try doubling your current schedule. It might start to make a dent in all that resentment you exude.
I'm not the sm who posted the article or ditzil (both of whose posts contained nothing but upbeat sentiment) which YOU decided to take issue with (and in your next breath are now trying to promote "positivity.") When you got all snippy, ditzil called you on it in no uncertain terms, with which I agree with because she described the tone of your post most accurately as sounding profoundly miserable and alienated. I simply chimed in to lend her my support and did not start anything here. In fact, you might want to look at the thread and notice it did not turn south until you showed up.
Your third paragraph has confirmed what I originally suspected. You sounded rather disingenuous in your other post when trying to claim to be supportive of Obama "for all the right reasons." My post to you has nothing to do with "whirling," little to do with your opinion and everything to do with your stinky attitude, so your attempts to belittle "crats" is a nonsequiter.
Your fixation on the chili dogs and cheesey fries perhaps can be explained by some unrequited calorie envy you harbor as you maintain that svelte 118-pound perfect bod. It certainly would explain why you are in such a bad mood. In any case, the point of the OP, ditzil and some of the posts that appear below was to talk about the difference between O and W, i.e., getting down with the public versus keeping above the fray of the hoi-polloi and the relief they feel to have a Prez who is more down-to-earth.
Guess you are just one of those folks who would rather gnash your teeth and regurgitate a whole bunch of ugly than to try to follow a thread and understand what the posters are really trying to say.
My dear, 2 wrongs, a right does not
.
Nothing snooty my dear...
we have no debt either, own a home, both work, put at least $600 in savings every month, contribute to a 401k also. Even when my DH was paying $1000 a month in child support (over now thank goodness) we still never went without, took vacations every year and continued to live comfortably. We live within a budget also. If you are both working you have got to be making at least 70K a year.
marks the location of current message within thread
I said no such thing.
