propaganda - see message

Could those of you who label some posts as having a less than credible news source share your techniques for finding and recognizing purely factual unbiased news and also how you keep from adding your own perspective in order to relay such incredibly unalloyed information to us?

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

link, which I already explained, and when you click on the red "require" link, it takes you directly to OBAMA'S PLAN, which does NOT SAY THAT. The original link IS A LIE.

It was cleverly worded, intended to promote the propaganda that's attractive to predisposed Obama haters, who apparently are known to NOT click on the "supporting" link which, in this case, DOES NOT support their assertion. I agree it worked with some, and that's sad.

Right down to the music that is being played in the background. Anyone can take bits and pieces of articles and flash them on the screen. Those aren't facts.

Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration.

The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country. It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican adminstration EXCEPT the top 1%.

While Nixon and Ford were in office interest rates for mortgages had ballooned to 11%-13% and many people in this country could not afford to buy a home. Carter brought those rates down so that more people in this country could afford to buy homes.

What caused this mess is not the people who were extended credit. Here is part of what caused it: Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time. Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. First-time home buyers were especially targeted. A lot of them didn't understand what they were getting into because it was misrepresented to them. They didn't know, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalities. Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and they were unable to refinance. Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford. As homeowners lost their homes the banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices were no longer able to collect on those loans. But the banks (and the CEOs) that initated those loans walked away with a great deal of money.

It was because of greed. And the deregulation that the republicans passed allowed it to happen.

If you had been alive or old enough to remember, things like this were not that uncommon. The hippie cult was rampant, especially in California and most of them were drug crazed, LSD I believe was the drug of choice, haven't heard of that in years.. The Viet Nam War was even more controversial than the Iraq War. Soldiers came home from Viet Nam and were spit on by these kinds of radicals. It was on the news daily. Anyone else remember? These people now have grandsons and granddaughters in Iraq and I can tell you first hand that at least some of them regret what they did and said in the 60s.

Now, considering this was back in the 60s and there is absolutely no proof that Obama was best buds with Ayers in the first place, why not let it go? Apparently Ayers is a respected professor today. How many of you who are of a ripe old age like myself would like to be judged on what you did when you were in your 20s? I wouldn't.

Republican Whip Eric Cantor meets with his staffers. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)

Today's Republicans are thumbing through Newt Gingrich's worn playbook of 1993 looking for tips on how to blunt President Barack Obama's political momentum and flip it to their advantage. In doing so, they also appear to have dug in to what might be called the secret appendix.

The official history of what happened during Bill Clinton's difficult first two years - which ended in a sweeping Republican congressional victory in 1994 - focuses on the GOP's united resistance to his economic plan and Hillary Clinton's failed health care reform. But there was a darker side to the political damage inflicted on the early Clinton administration.

Republicans and their right-wing allies disseminated what - in a covert operation - would be called "black propaganda." Some exaggerated minor scandals, like the Travel Office firings and Clinton's Whitewater real-estate deal, while other key figures on the Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, spread ugly conspiracy rumors linking Clinton to "mysterious deaths" and cocaine smuggling.

Sometimes, these multiplying "Clinton scandals" built on themselves with the help of their constant repetition in both the right-wing and mainstream news media. For instance, overheated accusations about some personnel changes at the White House Travel Office pushed deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster into a deep depression.

Then, on July 30, 1993, a distraught Foster went to Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River and shot himself. The Right quickly transformed the tragedy into a new front in the anti-Clinton psychological warfare, with Foster's death giving rise to a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists and a new way to raise doubts about Clinton.

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others, popularized the notion that Foster may have been killed elsewhere, with his body then transported to Fort Marcy Park. Repeated official investigations confirmed the obvious facts of Foster's suicide but could not quell the conspiracy rumors. [For the fullest account of the Foster case, see Dan Moldea's A Washington Tragedy.]

The "mystery" around Foster's death also bolstered the "mysterious deaths" list, which mostly contained names of people who had only tangential connections to Clinton. The effectiveness of the list was the sheer volume of the names, creating the illusion that Clinton must be a murderer even though there was no real evidence implicating Clinton in any of the deaths.

As the list was blast-faxed far and wide, one of my right-wing sources called me up about the list and said, "even if only a few of these are real, that's one helluva story." I responded that if the President of the United States had murdered just one person that would be "one helluva story," but that there was no evidence that Clinton was behind any of the deaths.

Other dark Clinton "mysteries" were spread through videos, like "The Clinton Chronicles" that Falwell hawked on his "Old-Time Gospel Hour" television show. Plus, salacious tales about the personal lives of the Clintons were popularized via right-wing magazines, such as The American Spectator, and the rapidly expanding world of right-wing talk radio.

The Right also generated broader conspiracy theories about "black helicopters" threatening patriotic Americans with a United Nations takeover. The paranoia fed the rise of a "militia movement" of angry white men who dressed up in fatigues and went into the woods for paramilitary training.

By fall 1994, Clinton's stumbling performance in office and the public doubts created by the black propaganda opened the way for a stunning Republican victory. Recognizing the influence of talk radio in spreading the Clinton smears, House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.

However, the forces that the anti-Clinton psy-war campaign set in motion had unintended consequences. In the months after the Republicans gained control of Congress, one pro-militia extremist, Timothy McVeigh, took the madness to the next step and blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Clinton Coup d'Etat?"]

Reprising the Smears

Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama's presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.

In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.

And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents - and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor.

So far at least, the Republicans are experiencing less success against Barack Obama than they did against Bill Clinton. According to opinion polls, Obama remains widely popular with an American public that favors his more activist agenda for reviving the American economy and confronting systemic problems like energy, health care and education.

Though Republicans scored points inside the Beltway with their opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill - and their complaints that Obama "failed" in his bipartisan outreach to them - the GOP tactics appear to have backfired with the American people.

Gauging public opinion one month into Obama's presidency, polls found that most Americans faulted the Republicans for rebuffing Obama's gestures of bipartisanship, and a New York Times/CBS News poll discovered that a majority said Obama "should pursue the priorities he campaigned on � rather than seek middle ground with Republicans." [NYT, Feb. 24, 2009]

But the Republicans seem incapable of coming up with any other strategy than to seek Obama's destruction, much as they torpedoed Clinton. The three moderate Republican senators who supported the stimulus package - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter - were widely denounced by the right-wing media as "traitors."

Indeed, the Republican Party arguably has become captive to the angry right-wing media that the GOP conservatives did so much to help create in the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War defeat and Richard Nixon's Watergate debacle.

This Right-Wing Machine proved useful in protecting Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal; undermining Clinton in the 1990s; dirtying up AL Gore in 2000; and wrapping George W. Bush in the protective garb of a full-scale cult of personality after 9/11.

But the machine wore down in its defense of Bush's multitude of disasters and ultimately could not generate enough suspicions about Obama to elect John McCain. Still, it remains a potent force in the country and particularly among the Republican "base."

It is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status.

In turn, Republican leaders can't disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama's presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh's openly declared desire for Obama to fail.

Now, the Republicans may see little choice but to bet on the ability of their Right-Wing Machine to continue spreading doubts and hysteria about Obama.

More books and DVDs can be expected soon, recycling the 2008 campaign's rumor-mongering on Obama - that he wasn't born in the United States, that he's a secret Muslim, that he's in league with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, etc.

Rumbling Insurrection

Much like the Clinton-era militia movement's fear of "black helicopters," there already are rumblings about the need for an armed uprising to thwart Obama's alleged "communist" agenda.

Ironically, right-wingers who defended George W. Bush when he mounted a radical assault on the Constitution - seeking to establish an imperial presidency while eliminating habeas corpus and other key freedoms - are suddenly seeing threats to the Constitution from Obama.

Fox News, in particular, has been floating the idea of armed rebellion. On Feb. 20 - the one-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration - Glenn Beck hosted a special program called "War Room" that "war-gamed" various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when "bubba" militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.

The segment featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama's election last November.

"This is going to be violent," said Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute. "People can't afford it [taxes] anymore. The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They're going to be uncontrollable. You're going to have gangs in control. Motorcycle marauders. You're not going to have enough police or federales - just like Mexico - to control the situation."

Beck envisioned the uprising - theoretically set in 2014 - starting "because people have been so disenfranchised" leading to a "bubba effect" touched off by federal agents from the ATF or FBI arresting some rancher in Texas or Arizona who has taken the law into his own hands in defending his property.

"That's totally possible," ex-Sgt. Strong said. "You've got people who are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of the United States, to include their own. � Your second and third orders of effect are going to be your bubbas hunkering down and being anti-government."

Beck, who was a longtime fixture on CNN's Headline News before moving to Fox, then expanded on the justification for the bubba uprising against a federal government that was "coming in and disenfranchising people over and over and over again - and having the people say please listen to us."

According to Beck, these oppressed Americans "know the Constitution. They know the writings of the Founders and they feel that the government - or they will in this scenario and I think we're on this road - the government has betrayed the Constitution. So they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution."

Beck then turned to ex-CIA officer Scheuer and asked, "So how do you defuse this, Michael, or how long even do we have before this becomes a crazy real scenario?"

"I don't think you'd want to defuse it, Glenn," Scheuer responded. "The Second Amendment is � at base not about hunting or about a militia, but about resisting tyranny. The Founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against a tyrannical government."

As the discussion edged toward advocacy of violent revolution, Beck sought to reel it back in a bit.

"Don't get me wrong," the host said. "I am against the government. And I think they've just been horrible. I do think they are betraying the principles of our Founders every day they're in office. But I have to tell you this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is shaking nitroglycerine."

Beck then got back to the point: "Do the soldiers come in and do they round up people or do they fight with the people for the Constitution? What does the Army, what does the military do?"

Scheuer answered: "I don't think the military is ever going to shoot on the American people, sir. I think the military - of all people - read the Constitution every year, right through."

Beck then suggested that Obama's stimulus package might lead to this back-door federal tyranny.

"We just had in our stimulus package a way for if your governor says no to the money, the legislature can go around the governor and go right to the Feds," Beck said. "It's this kind of thing that would make the federal government say, �You know what? We can call up the National Guard. We don't need your governor to do it.'"

Such insurrectionist musings on Fox News are not likely to be taken seriously by most people. Indeed, many Americans may find it amusing that Fox has developed a heartfelt concern about disenfranchising voters after its enthusiastic embrace of Bush's undemocratic "election" in 2000 or that Fox now feels a sudden reverence for the Constitution after eight years of defendin Bush as he trampled it.

But this sort of Fox chatter runs the risk of feeding the well-nursed grievances of angry white "bubbas" and possibly inspiring a new Timothy McVeigh.

More significantly, today's Republican leaders - finding themselves with little new to offer - appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.

-------

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons, Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

It's obvious your mind is already made up, so please do not force yours on us who do not agree with you one bit. If you're trying to make the rest of us swing in your direction by writing this litany of pettyness and sillyness, you're wrong. John McCain is pass�...gone, okay? If I hear him talk about his military service and his tortures one more time, I'm going to puke! This is 2008, the war in Vietnam is long over and the U.S. had to get out. The Russians were in Aghanistan for ten years and had to get out with millions of their soldiers dead. This is an unwinnable war, why smarty pants can't you understand that? And Palin....oh please! She's a controller freak, she'll be running McCain if he's elected! We don't want neither one of them and you will see why come November 4th. We will not put up with four more years of aq Bush.......he's screwed up the country so bad in every way possible! Now everyone hates americans thanks to your current president. He's a Clint Eastwood in disguise. The axis of evil is America, and not the countries Bush loves to denigrade. So stop your propaganda against Barack, he's a breath of fresh air which we all long for. Biden did a lot more than McCain did in Congress. We don't need a novice from Alaska that's for sure. I'm Canadian and up here, it's democrat all the way. I suppose Palin can see the Yukon from her bedroom now? Bush will go down as the worst President the U.S. has ever had. No wonder you're all so scared and nervous about terrorists....he dared them and challendged and now they hate his guts. Let's get Barack in there and start negotiating, communicating and get the world on you side once again, like it used to be. So don't give me your crap about Barack or Joe. Bet you don't even know where Khandahar is! So stop your propaganda and keep your hateful thoughts to yourself!

Actually it is said by the experts that if you are inexperienced with a gun you're better off not having one. It's kind of complex, but check out the info if you're interested.

I used to have military mace (actually from when I lived in a big city) - not sure if it's available to the public - probably easier to use than a gun and just as effective. Otherwise, not sure who we're supposed to be afraid of here.....I generally am not afraid of intruders and I don't have any weapons in my house other than my dogs and my mouth!!!

This was after Joe Wilson made public that Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing uranium to make nukes was FALSE. The administration KNEW it was false, yet Bush used this fake threat of nukes in his State of the Union address to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the American public so they would support this bogus war.

That's how Bushies handle people who cross them. Don't DARE tell the truth or expose the administration for what it truly is. If you do, they'll not only put the life of a CIA agent in danger, but every single person she worked with around the globe pertaining to WMD. Why isn't this treason? It's the Bush way of doing things, and Karl Rove is an expert and accomplished thug.

I hope this goes beyond Rove and Libby and goes straight to Bush and Cheney. This is definitely an illegal war, brought on totally false premises, and Bush and Cheney should be personally held accountable for all the deaths (American and Iraqi) that have resulted from their lies.

It's truly sad when the only man on earth who can make Saddam look not so bad is GEORGE W. BUSH. I'm very ashamed of my government.

I'm writing to my Congressman and Senator and see if this is true, express my objection and see if they can BOUNCE the *blank check* they gave him regarding Iraq and require Congressional approval for air strikes.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that �God put me here� to deal with the war on terror. The President�s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that �he�s the man,� the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his re�lection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.

Someone needs to tell Bush that God thinks Bush is too engulfed in his own ego to fully understand God's REAL message to him, and that's why God gave us POLLS.

I don't believe religious symbols of ANY kind belong in schools (unless they're religious schools) or government buildings. If Walmart or Target wish to be inclusive to all religious beliefs, more power to them. Private businesses should be free to do as they wish. If they want to limit it to the religious Christmas and exclude the secular *Christmas,* some people might not want to shop in that kind of *exclusive* shop. You can bet their profit margin is the bottom line for them.

For every religion out there, there are buildings: churches, mosques, temples, etc. where like-minded people gather to worship. Trying to control the very WORDS people say isn't going to work unless and until you guys figure out a way to implant a chip in every American that will force them to speak, think, believe and worship just like you do. Maybe some of us think you'd do that if you had the ability, and maybe THAT'S the underlying thing that people are fighting.

I am so SICK of this man's lies. Bush needs to get them straight. When he said the following in 2004, he was clearly lying and KNEW IT, as we now all know. I just wonder if there's ever been just ONE TIME in the last 5 years when he's actually told the truth. Have you seen this?

Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order, he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so, he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use roving wiretaps, which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example, he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

I totally agree this absolutely reaches across the board. This monster repeatedly raped this child for 3 years, but the damage he's done to her is going to affect her entire life. How about putting him in jail FOREVER so he can't hurt anyone else??? I also wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty for animals such as this.

I've recently seen this judge on TV, actually defending his actions, as if there is a defense for them. Thank God for Bill O'Reilly (I don't usually care for him) and Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams (and others, I'm sure) who are publicizing this. Hopefully, this judge will be removed soon so maybe more children won't suffer. This judge, in my opinion, is just as guilty as the molester himself.

I sat here, trying to put myself in the parents' shoes, and I wonder how many parents will begin to feel that taking the law into their own hands and killing these rabid animals is the only way to keep their children safe in lieu of a judge that cares more about the criminals than their victims. If and when that happens, I'm not sure I could blame them.

I've written to Vermont's governor, as well. I'm glad so many people are writing and publicizing this issue. It's the only way things will change.

Number one, despite what is so *obvious* to you, I do not hate my country. In fact, I miss it very much. And I don't hate Bush because I don't *hate* anyone. When he took over the Presidency, I began my impressions of him on an even keel. Slowly, bit by bit, he has corroded any good impressions I ever may have had of him with his constant lying, dirty tricks, contempt for the Constitution, total and complete refusal to admit that he is NOT PERFECT, blatant disregard for the security of our borders, presiding over an econmy where people can barely afford gas but oil company executives get richer and richer, etc., etc. I truly and sincerely believe he poses a HUGE threat to the security of every American citizen.

Regardless of what the Iranian President (his name is Ahmadinejad, by the way) claims to have, they don't have the capacity to nuke anyone, but the USA does, and Bush has a ZERO record when it comes to diplomacy. Again, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are whack jobs, and neither can be reasoned with. I believe this is a very dangerous combination of two out-of-control egos, and the end of humanity could very well be imminent. I'm not going to apologize for caring if my grandchildren might not have the opportunity to reach voting age in this country because of a president who doesn't care about his legacy because, when asked, he said Who cares? We'll all be dead, anyway. That statement, combined with his love of war, I find to be quite chilling.

As far as being *lost in my world,* I can see very clearly a President who is losing more and more credibility, not on a daily basis any more but on an HOURLY basis. I have ZERO faith or trust in this man. Again, contrary to your implied intimate knowledge of me, my brain, my heart and my soul, these aren't because of any preconceived notions I might have about Bush. These are because the actions of Bush himself. As polls are evidencing more and more each day, I'm not alone in my skepticism of him.

Regarding where I got the quotes, if you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you Google them. You've already indicated an inclination to not believe them, so I'm not going to waste my time by going back to the multiple sources I found, simply to provide you with a link that you've already decided not to believe. If your interest is sincere, you'll look it up.

Regarding your response to my *shopping spree* statement, I'm sorry, but it didn't come across as a joke to me. It sounded like a negative character judgment regarding someone who doesn't agree with you, which is a common Neocon MO from Bush and his cronies all the way down to the lowest peon on the totem pole who is convinced Bush is on his or her side.

Likewise, you can't possibly know the extent of my intelligence since you don't know me, have never met me and aren't qualified to offer such an opinion. Inherent in your assessment that I'm *not that stupid* is the notion that you feel I do possess a certain degree of stupidity, which leads me to your comment that I feel I have to *label everyone who disagrees* with me as *uninformed and unthinking.* I respectfully point out that these *labels* are YOUR words, not mine, and I would challenge you to point to those words in my above post to you.

I try to get my information from a variety of sources. These days, it's hard to find a completely neutral source.

The main thing I'm interested in is finding the truth, and it seems that the party with the most to hide is the least likely to provide it.

When Clinton was President, I listened to a lot of right-leaning news sources for the very same reason. I thought the lack of respect Clinton showed in the Oval Office was terrible, and I was actually in favor of impeaching him for that. I didn't buy into and agree with the notion that what he did in his private life was his business. In my opinion, the Oval Office doesn't belong to the President; it belongs to every American tax-paying citizen.

I voted for Ronald Reagan, and to this day, I still think of him as a wonderful President. Historians may disagree with me on that point, and they may be right, because I'm obviously no expert in that field. I even voted for George Herbert Walker Bush, so I'm not some hardline lefty who hates the United States, is godless and has no moral values.

(I just wanted to share a thumbprint of who I really am because some people want to crucify me on this board simply because they see my name and couldn't care less what I have to say. You, on the other hand, have been posting here in a very respectful, intelligent manner, and I'm very appreciative of that and hope you continue to do so. I'm beginning to look forward to reading your posts after the last day or so.)

I believe that many people were looking for a big change in the White House when they voted for George W. Bush. I believe they wanted some sense of decency and honor restored to it. I was one of those people.

When I look back at the thing Clinton did that I thought was so terrible, and I look at what Bush has done, I guess the only thing I can say to sum it up is what Jay Leno said in his monologue the other night: At least Clinton only screwed one American at a time (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).

What amazes me the most about (what seems like) blind loyalty to Bush is that I wonder what they thought they were voting for, compared to what they got. I thought Republicans (conservatives) were supposed to beiin favor of less spending, smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility. After really disliking President Clinton, I actually feel that when it came to things important to the everyday lives of Americans, Clinton was a far better President.

I feel no sense of trust for President Bush. I don't feel he is on the side of the average American. I truly believe he wants to get rid of the middle class altogether, so the only ones left are the rich (who he referred to as his *base*) and the poor.

Whether he made the pejorative comment about the Constitution or not, he ACTS like he has no respect for it (as was also mentioned in the article). There is truly no need any more for Congress, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democratic Congress because it doesn't matter what laws they write, if Bush doesn't like it, he will simply issue a *signing statement* expressing that he will do what he wants, anyway.

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and he seems to totally disregard it. To me, it's ironic that he seeks to search and destroy all dictatorships -- except the one that is of his own creation here in the United States.

There's a growing history of how he treats those who either tell the truth or simply don't agree with his policies. He *Swiftboats* them.

There are many stories out there about the Diebold machines being rigged so that a certain political party wins. I have a friend who voted on a Diebold machine that produced a paper receipt. Sure enough, it reflected that she voted for the other party, when, in fact, she did NOT.

I'm completely against his views on immigration. I believe we should have immediately tightened and secured ALL our borders after 9/11 and, at least for the time being, not allow ANYONE in. Instead, we used that money to go to war with Iraq, not because Saddam Hussein was a threat but because Bush needed a war to insure a *successful Presidency.* Did you know that the President's itinery was found by an ex-con in a trash can last week? Why was that allowed to happen?

Did you know that part of his Iraq war spending includes a comphrehensive healthcare plan for every Iraqi? Look at the healthcare system in the United States. Shouldn't the healthcare for Americans take precedence over the healthcare of Iraqis?

Do I want our troops to come home? You bet I do. I believe the best way we can support them is to get them out of there.

Having said that, I also believe we simply cannot *cut and run.* We simply cannot go into a country and completely destroy and then leave without fixing what we broke. I believe we morally owe it to the people of Iraq to leave their country in a better place than when we found it. I wish democracy would have worked in Iraq INSTANTLY. Then maybe Bush would have hopefully begun to worry about fixing the massive problems in his own country. Having said that, I have serious doubts that a long-lasting democracy will survive in that region. I believe that many of them view us as being evil and having no morals. (I can't really disagree with this view, considering some of the things that go on in this country.) I think Joe Biden had an excellent idea of dividing Iraq into three provinces (which is supported in the Iraqi Constitution).

Instead, I believe this war was a whim, based on his own personal goals, without regard for one single soldier he sent to die. To me, that is unforgiveable.

Should he be allowed to spy on innocent Americans during wartime? I guess that depends on the definition of *innocent.* I sure don't know any terrorists. Heck, I don't even know my own neighbors. But I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement with his policies, and I've read how innocent Americans whose only *sin* is disagreeing with this President, so I have no reason to believe that I won't find myself being *investigated* by some agency eventually, maybe even the IRS in the form of an audit or some other intimidating tactic that this President is so fond of using.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, I personally can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her (even if I DID live in a country where my vote actually counted). I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as I am with the President.

I'm not some Godless heathen without morals simply because I don't agree with Bush. I very much believe in God. In fact, I believe God has been sending Bush a series of *signs* that he has chosen to ignore. What I don't believe is pushing my religion down everyone else's throats. What I believe in most of all is tolerance and respect for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. When one religion acts as if it is superior to all others, that concerns me and automatically forces me further to the left. Freedom of religion in this country is a wonderful thing, and nobody's religion is better than someone else's (including those who simply don't believe at all). Yet, the fallacy that all Democrats (or anyone else who doesn't believe in Bush) are godless heathens is alive and well. Ann Coulter, who can't seem to remember her address and is under investigation for voter fraud (see http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm, complete with the complaining document) plans on releasing a book outlining evil devils (such as myself and other millions of Americans she's never met) on none other than 6/6/06. I believe that one particular religion has no place in government. Do I have a problem with *In God We Trust* on our money? Of course not. When the word *God* is used in a generic term, it's INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. But whether or not I can read it as I purchase a newspaper is irrelevant to what I feel in my soul and my heart. I can assure you my morals are very high, and it truly hurts (thus turning to anger) when certain conservatives accuse people like me of being evil and Godless. They say that most anger is the result of fear. The times I'm most angry is truly when I'm the most frightened. It's really hard to carry on a dialogue with someone who has labeled you so negatively, a sense of self-defense kicks in, and often arguments and more name-calling ensues, none of which is productive and all of which is hurtful and fruitless.

I'm sorry this is so long, but as I said, I enjoy reading your posts. Although I don't know you or your political beliefs, you seem to be conservative. You also seem to be intelligent and respectful and don't resort to personal attacks on posters, which is very refreshing on these boards. I was just trying to give you some insight into who I am and the reason I don't like Bush. In fact, I'm very frightened of him.

As I've said before, if I felt my President was honest, trustworthy, ethical and truly had the interests of ALL Americans foremost in his mind, I would have no problem at all with his obtaining lists of my telephone calls because I truly have nothing to hide, and if it saved one life, to me, it would be worth it. I just don't trust him to do the right thing, and that isn't based on anything I've heard or read from any left-leaning media. It's based solely on his own actions in the last six years.

I'm no far left-leaning whacko. In fact, I'm truly a middle-of-the road kind of thinker. I think there are a lot of us out there. Speaking personally, it's just that the *righter* he goes, the *lefter* I automatically wind up, not because I voluntarily choose to, but because in order to maintain my original thoughts, that's where he pushes me.

I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I fully expect you not to agree with me, and I hope you respond because I am very interested in hearing your views. Again, I thank you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling. You have opened the door to serious, honest and intelligent debate, and for that, I thank you.

I hope you had an opportunity to read the article I posted before it was censored. It certainly explains the few bad apples in an otherwise wonderful military and also answers the question you raised regarding the recruiting tactics.

I have decided to lock this thread. I do not believe the OP had bad intentions, but I do not like the direction in which this thread is going.

Please watch your comments. This is the second post of yours I have edited based on inappropriate remarks. Let this serve as a warning to you.

Your comments about race were inappropriate. They were bound to offend, and it is best to leave those kind of remarks off this site.