The "family values" party?

• The "family values" party? - sm
  • Why woul d you think this was done by Christians? - Old part-timer
    • It's easy...all you have to do is read the posts. - sm
      • Tell that to Mrs. M. (nm) - Backwards typist
      • Anti-Christian posts - Old part-timer
  • Oh yeah, judge an entire party by a few bad apples. - How typical.nm
  • don't toss out baby with bathwater... - sm
  • You are judging me. - shelly
    • The magic 8 ball says "most likely". nm - geek
  • Oh please. We just post articles of Obama - you call that hate crimes? nm

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

You refer to a morally bankrupt Clinton and his PARTY.  I assume you mean the Democrats, all guilty by association.  So then am I to draw the same conclusion that you believe that Foley and his party are also morally bankrupt? 

I believe you have another post also generalizing the Democrats as all being sleazy, for lack of a better word.  Perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am wrong.

Despite being a liberal, I feel that Foley is not representative of his party's values in general. 

You asked about the values of liberals, so here goes ... at least from this liberal's perspective.  I value people's inherent ability to make decisions about their own lives, barring medical issues preventing same (i.e., mental incapacity).  I live by the Golden Rule.  I value the choice for people to practice whichever faith they choose ... or none at all ... and really mean it!  I accept people and their differences from the "norm".  I believe 2 consenting adults with the required mental capacity should be allowed to marry - with no litmus test.  And I sure don't care what people do in their own bedrooms as long as it is between consenting adults.  Most importantly, I value the principles set forth by the Constitution of the United States since, first and foremost, I am an American.

That about sums it up.  I hope it helps!

By Jimmy Carter.  A MUST READ.

In reading the book, I was reminded of the saying that people don't remember what you said. They remember how you made them feel. In this Carter succeeds. That said, don't pick up a copy of the book expecting to find well reasoned positions backed with unambigous references to reliable data and statistics.

In Our Endangered Values, Carter describes a set of American values: equality, liberty, justice for all, individual empowerment, inclusion, generosity, forgiveness, and leadership by example. This is framed by a narrative which is personal and focused on people finding common ground on which to build a better tomorrow.

These values are then contrasted against what is described as a general trend toward fundamentalism. The fundamentalism Carter argues against is not the adherance to a literal interpretation of secular texts, but the practice of intolerance regarding people of differing beliefs.

Intolerance, he argues, becomes particularly dangerous where people choose to recognize their leaders and institutions as masters rather than servants. Such leaders and their institutions tend to combine their beliefs and intolerance into agendas which exclude, dehumanize and punish.

From there, it is just a hop, a skip, and a jump to a laundry list of ways in which the actions of recent administrations and highly visible religious leaders are tipping the balance toward fundamentalism and endangering the values he holds dear.

In summary, it is well worth reading, and is relatively light reading at that. Some reviewers have come down fairly harshly on the book for religious and/or political grounds. I think they miss the point. Carter isn't mandating that you subscribe to his beliefs. He is asking you to look for common ground and tolerate the differences.

Golly how many times are you going to bring this up about Clinton like it is truly important in the problems our world faces?  It's like you are completely nutso about this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over......wow!

I think it is terrifying and heart-wrenchingly sad that with the genocide, starvation, astounding poverty globally PLUS this war we have created with how many hundreds of thousands of civilians killed including babies, pregnant women, children plus the US dead and countless with TBI and amputations....that the thing that you totally obsess over is Clinton and his sex and his lie to the court over something that should never have gone to court in the first place.  JFK would have been in deep you-know-what had he ever been brought to task for his philandering....and he probably would have covered things up, too.

How pathetic that this nation is more interested in sex scandals than the multitude of catastrophic problems facing our population on this planet.  It shows how shallow and value-less we can be.......impeaching someone over sex.....how about impeaching someone over the death of 1/2 a million people for dubious reasons and political gain.....   

She was left unsupervised at a very critical age (like the Down baby will be) and did not receive enough parental guidance to prevent this tragedy.

Barack and Michelle have been married for years with not a hint of scandal.  they have two beautiful age-appropriate children. Joe Biden has a beautiful blended family that truly loves each other. McCain dumped his gravely injured first wife for a beauty queen.  Then he was pressured into picking another beauty queen with an Down infant who obviously needs a full time mother and pregnant teenager for his running mate.  Family values, family values, family values.

They must be very confused by the WH's response.  Probably don't know what they're allowed to *think* about this.

My hunch, based on their own posts, is that at this moment in time, they'd all vote for Bennett because his inner prejudices and hatred match their own.

Bush Family Values

MICHAEL DONNELLY | September 8 2006

It's astonishing to see how desperate our homegrown fascists have become. The entire cabal is in full-on media blitz mode with Rummy, Dick and Theodosius, er, Bush slamming their foreign opponents with the latest absurd tag Islamic Fascists; and, their domestic ones as Nazi appeasers. Or, in the deranged mind of Condi Rice; domestic opponents are tantamount to folks who would have stopped the Civil War and allowed slavery to continue in the South.

It's not just desperate; it's monumentally moronic, given the real history. This bizarre trip on the Wayback Machine demands a deeper look--though don't look to the mainstream media. Given the opening, one would think that everyone by now would be fully informed that the Bush Family took Nazi appeasement to far greater heights and were actually part of an American faction of documented Nazi SUPPORTERS.

We're also unlikely to see much mainstream media analysis of the new Islamic Fascist branding of those opposing the Empire's designs on the Middle East. As Sir Winston Bush gets a media pass as he tries to conflate fascism, communism and Islam while also trying to ironically tie his criminal wars to WWII and the Cold War, it warrants our own trip on the Wayback Machine to see just what the Bush family was doing during those earlier good wars.

Samuel Bush: arms merchant

George W. Bush's great-grandfather, Samuel Bush was charter member of the military/industrial complex. In 1918, he was chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section for the War Industries Board, with oversight responsibility for Percy Rockefeller's Remington Company. Rockefeller had helped get Bush's son, Prescott into Yale and Skull and Bones in 1916.

A 1926 Senate Munitions Inquiry (the Nye Committee) into the military/industrial complex's WWI windfall examined Samuel Bush's dealings with Remington as part of his War Industries Board duties. Virtually ALL of the records of Samuel Bush's efforts were destroyed by the National Archives to save space.

Prescott Sheldon Bush; George Herbert Walker: Nazi collaborators

George W. Bush's grandfather, former Connecticut Senator Prescott S. Bush was a Wall Street banker with Brown Brothers Harriman. (Averill Harriman was also instrumental in getting young Prescott into Yale and S&B.) Bush's maternal grandfather George Herbert Walker was the bank's first president. Walker built the famed Bush family estate at Kennebunkport on Walker Point. Prescott Bush joined W. A. Harriman & Company in 1926 and became its CEO.

Harriman Bank was the official Nazi financial conduit in the US. Closely tied to Fritz Thyssen, who proudly claimed in his 1941 book I Paid Hitler that he was the Nazi Party's first and greatest financial backer. The Union Banking Corporation (UBC) was a subsidiary of Harriman created by Walker and it was used for Nazi financial matters. Thyssen provided 100,000 gold marks ($10 million in today's dollars) to the Nazis in 1923 just prior to Hitler's failed putsch. By 1941, UBC held a private Nazi stash of over $3,000,000 ($36 million in today's dollars) in its New York vaults.

After the war, a Treasury Department investigation reported that during the two years after the Stock Market crash; Thyssen dedicated his fortune and his influence to the single purpose of bringing Hitler to power. In 1932, he arranged the now famous meeting in the Düsseldorf Industrialists' Club, at which Hitler addressed the leading businessmen of the Ruhr and the Rhineland. At the close of Hitler's speech, Thyssen cried, `Heil Herr Hitler'. By the time of the German elections later that year, Thyssen had succeeded in eliciting contributions to Hitler's campaign fund from all of the big industrial combines. He himself is reported to have spent 3,000,000 ($30 million today) marks on the Nazis in 1932 alone.

During 1933 Thyssen served as intercessor between von Hindenburg, von Papen, and Hitler. He brought them together at a secret meeting which laid the basis for the appointment of Hitler as Reichschancellor.

It was Thyssen, not Prescott Bush as some now claim, who was called Hitler's Angel by the New York Herald Tribune. He later fled Germany in 1939.

Even though Hitler had declared war on the US, it was still legal for UBC to conduct finances for the Nazis. But, after Pearl Harbor that outrage finally changed. After another ten months of Bush/Harriman/UBC work for the Nazis; in November 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, all of the Harriman business interests were seized by the government, including UBC.

The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war and then quickly returned. Prescott Bush' interest in UBC consisted of One Share--worth $1,500,000 ($19 million in today's dollars) at the time UBC was disbanded in 1951. (The Harriman family garnered $4 billion!) It was the money used to start the Bush Family Texas oil empire.

Another Harriman subsidiary through Silesian Holding Co.; Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation saw the Harriman-Bush group owning one-third of a complex of steel making, coal-mining, and zinc-mining activities in Germany and Poland. The other two-thirds were owned by Wehrwirtschaftsführer (Military Economy Leader) Friedrich Flick. Silesian Holding Company's president was George Walker and its sole directors were Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman.

Silesian Steel used slave labor from Auschwitz (even before the concentration camp was built there) in its coal, iron and zinc mining operations. At Nuremberg, Flick was sentenced to seven years for Silesian's role in building up the Nazi war machine. Harriman, Bush and Walker were never charged.

June 14, 1940, nine months after the Nazis conquered Poland, the IG Farben Company opened an Auschwitz factory and slave labor camp in occupied Poland, to produce artificial rubber and gasoline from coal. This was done in a partnership with Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (EXXON).

The millions made off the labor of hundreds of thousands of Nazi victims were inherited by William S. Farish III, grandson of William S. Farish, the head of the IG/Standard cartel. Farish III is George H.W. Bush's best friend and the person who took over Bush's assets and managed them in a blind trust after Bush was elected vice-president.

Investigator John Loftus has said, As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman to be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany.

I've yet to take the Wayback Machine back to investigate Rice's whopper that decrying the carnage of the U.S. Civil War meant supporting leaving Slavery in place. But, I'm pretty certain that the same unsavory links to what John Trudell calls, the colonial industrial class were just as odious in the 1860s.

Oil man in office - SURPRISE!!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/10/news/economy/oil_officials.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008091015

Umm...and just who was being waterboarded prior to 9/11, Mr. Obama?  Or, putting it more precisely, we know now from the 9/11 Commission that the attack on that day was in the making long before Bush even took office.  So which of the numerous values that Clinton violated was it that led to that event?

Pathetic reasoning - a crime against your office, in fact.  You obviously do not know the first thing about either terrorists or terrorism - or else you think we don't.

Impeach Obama now.  Unfit to serve.

Umm...and just who was being waterboarded prior to 9/11, Mr. Obama?  Or, putting it more precisely, we know now from the 9/11 Commission that the attack on that day was in the making long before Bush even took office.  So which of the numerous values that Clinton violated was it that led to that event?

Pathetic reasoning - a crime against your office, in fact.  You obviously do not know the first thing about either terrorists or terrorism - or else you think we don't.

Impeach Obama now.  He is utterly unfit to serve.

Should cut both ways, shouldn't it?

I'm providing the link to the article because I run the risk of posting profanity if I copy what some of these Republicans did, and as we all know, the words describing the deed is unacceptable, although the deed itself will be defended in Neoconville, as long as it's done by a Republican.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html

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

There are a lot of things to fault Obama for already.  Just because you are too blind to see it just shows that you are so into democratic rhetoric that you can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie. 

I truly feel sorry for people who are so caught up in the party lines (and this goes for both dems and pubs) that they refuse to see politicians for who they truly are. 

Barrack Obama is a liar and he is so obvious about his lying it is amazing that you people can't even see it when it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE!!! 

to watch the acceptance speech by Obama.  There was one individual at the party who kept talking endlessly and kept trying to re-take the floor after someone spoke about their  interests.  it was incredibly annoying.  Ever had that happen in your life? conversation hog?