Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Millions of Americans care about things you probably don't care about -- they care about abortion and cultural issues and gun rights and the like and thus get convinced that Republicans serve their interests better."
I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs or their personal desires and cultural preferences, certainly. But when they sacrifice their economic well being and their civil rights--or mine--in order to preserve or elimnate one 'right', that's just not very clear thinking. That's been what's going on politically in this country for a generation or more, and that's how Republicans manage to get the very people that suffer the most under their policies to fervently back them. It has to stop, and people have to become more politically astute and sophisticated.
...'Free enterprise for the poor, socialism for the rich' (Gore Vidal)
A nice op-ed on the bailout of the rich by the Democratic congress in the Irish Times. I enjoyed that one day when the massive theft was voted down, but we knew that, in America, the poor must be fleeced.
So, we have an election to decide which team would kill the most innocent life overseas and take the most from the common man at home. Good luck with the election.
The op-ed is linked at my sig.
"Gains privatised and losses socialised" was the more pointed comment by Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at the Stern School in New York University. He is known in the economics trade as a "permabear" because of his repeated claims over the last six years that a financial system based on self-regulation, non-deposits, highly leveraged subprime housing debts and globalised derivatives trading was unsustainable and would collapse.
The professor tells you what would have been a much better approach; but I doubt anyone will in government will be listening any time soon.
As I always say; sacks of government money for the rich and a taser for the poor bastards.
KittI'm not sure that they're technically "lying". To lie, you have to know, or at least have good reason to suspect, that what you're saying is untrue.
-- kovie
Yes, I know and agree and also agree with the premise of the rest of your post. But the guy I used as an example was lying. I'd bet the ranch on it. He articulated his points for one thing. He wasn't stumbling around like a lot of them do. He was a regular preacher type. One of those who sounds like he is the voice of reason and authority. There is no way that he didn't know that Raines had and has nothing to do with Obama's campaign.
Which brings up another part of the issue that infuriates and frustrates me. I watched the C-Span host stare blankly into the camera as that guy said that about Raines. I don't expect the host or hostess to call out each and every misstatement, but one as blatantly wrong and easily proven so as that one should have been called out. That would not only correct the record but it would put everything else that the caller had claimed to be fact come into question. And that kind of correction could be repeated much more often than it is. That would have the effect of both setting the record straight and of reducing the number of dishonest callers. Some of them would think twice about being shown for the liars that they are in the middle of their talking-points rant.
and THIS was winking at the crowds, from every newstand:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042008/frontback.htm
(Image of Saturday's NYPost - - the hardcopy edition of FoxNews.)
Glenn Greenwald, though reasoned in his column, does not consider the effect that conservative evangelical doctrine has on one's world view. When confronted with a choice between "the Word of God" and contradictory scientific evidence, the conservative evangelical will always choose the Word of God.
The biblical text admonishes true believers to "walk by faith and not by sight," thereby creating a different reality for the believer, one rooted in his or her faith and evangelical indoctrination. This indoctrination is based on the strict interpretation of the biblical text as inerrant.
Americans may indeed vote for the McCain-Palin ticket solely on their belief that Ms. Palin represents their world view. It isn't because they are stupid but because they were taught to cling to their biblical truths and fight against the "powers and principalities" that wage war against the faithful.
I know how the conservative evangelical believers think. I was one. I was an ordained pastor in the Assemblies of God. If their theological teachings remain faithful to their doctrine, the believers would be charged with heresy for voting for the Obama-Biden ticket. Their commitment to Christ demands that they uphold biblical values in their votes.
Despite the unpopularity of the current resident of the White House, true believers are sure that he occupies that office because it was the will of God. Progressives know they were duped but how can one argue against personal faith? One believes what one believes.
In a time of moral ambiguity, such as the one we now live in, true believers will draw even closer to their faith and the teachings of their churches. It is, after all, the way they define their lives and very existence in this material world.
and suddenly there are voices in my family, who tell me that McCain and Palin should inherit the depression and not Obama!
It is almost certain that the Democrats will ride Obama's long coat tails to a resounding victory. I will be glad to see a host of Republican officials banished from the Imperial City.
The question becomes; how will Obama rule the Empire? Will he try to return America to just being one country of many; or will he try to maintain the current American Empire.
That will be the single most important question of his presidency. It will not be this small policy question or that one appointment; no, my friends, it will be on the question of if Obama can really bring change.
Not a little change. Not a different colour in the Oval Office. Not some relief on medical bills. No, my friends, it will be on re-directing the Trillions a year spent on killing back in to productive use here in this nation.
Will he do it?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
