mobileCategory: politics
01/12/07 11:58 - ID#37660
I smell corruption
As all of you know the Democrats are now in controll of congress. The house of Representaves is busy passing legeslation that the people support, but the Republicans have ignored. They call it a 100 hours agenda, and there are at least 8 key pieces of legeslation they are working on.
So far Democrats have passed bills to raise the minimum wage, fund stem cell research, and inspect cargo coming into the US.
Today they are trying to fix the medicare perscription drug plan and make it less expensive. And the Republicans are trying to protect their corporate sponsors.
This is one of those programs that is so corrupt and harmful to the taxpayer that everyone I tell about the program is appalled. Whether they vote republican or Democrat, or don't vote at all. This plan is a huge giveaway to the pharmicutical companies. (funny, the pharmicutical industry gives the most money to political campaigns). The program costs more than tripple what they originally projected. It is just funneling government money into the pockets of corporate doners.
The biggest problem with the program is this; our government is prohibbited from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. There is a clause in the bill explicitly forbidding the government from negotiating prices. Why? In any normal market situation companies bid on contracts. When you are spending a lot of money, say providing 23.5 million seniors with perscription drug coverage, companies try to get that contract by offering a competitave price. I thought republicans liked the free market? Maybe not when it prevents them from funneling taxpayer money to their campaign doners.
The government already negotiates lower prices for the Veterans Administration, why not the medicare perscription drug plan? Shouldn't we be concerned about saving the taxpayers money? Spending responsably?
The Republicans are trying to block this reform of the medicare drug bill. The Democrats are going to pass a bill opening the door for the government to start negotiating lower drug prices, getting rid of the loophole. but the republicans are threatening to filabuster, and the president it threatening to veto the bill. Thanks George, I can see you realy have my best interests at heart.
I find it amusing that this is the first thing the republicans are actively trying to block. They must figure that money is worth more than votes. Corporate sponsors are worth more than popular support. When it comes to getting reelected, they would rather hyponotize voters with TV commercials, instead of getting support based on responsably looking out for the interests of the taxpayer.
The republicans who vote against this bill will give you a long line of bullshit, but essentially they can't vote against the bill because they will lose their corporate sponsors.
So far Democrats have passed bills to raise the minimum wage, fund stem cell research, and inspect cargo coming into the US.
Today they are trying to fix the medicare perscription drug plan and make it less expensive. And the Republicans are trying to protect their corporate sponsors.
This is one of those programs that is so corrupt and harmful to the taxpayer that everyone I tell about the program is appalled. Whether they vote republican or Democrat, or don't vote at all. This plan is a huge giveaway to the pharmicutical companies. (funny, the pharmicutical industry gives the most money to political campaigns). The program costs more than tripple what they originally projected. It is just funneling government money into the pockets of corporate doners.
The biggest problem with the program is this; our government is prohibbited from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. There is a clause in the bill explicitly forbidding the government from negotiating prices. Why? In any normal market situation companies bid on contracts. When you are spending a lot of money, say providing 23.5 million seniors with perscription drug coverage, companies try to get that contract by offering a competitave price. I thought republicans liked the free market? Maybe not when it prevents them from funneling taxpayer money to their campaign doners.
The government already negotiates lower prices for the Veterans Administration, why not the medicare perscription drug plan? Shouldn't we be concerned about saving the taxpayers money? Spending responsably?
The Republicans are trying to block this reform of the medicare drug bill. The Democrats are going to pass a bill opening the door for the government to start negotiating lower drug prices, getting rid of the loophole. but the republicans are threatening to filabuster, and the president it threatening to veto the bill. Thanks George, I can see you realy have my best interests at heart.
I find it amusing that this is the first thing the republicans are actively trying to block. They must figure that money is worth more than votes. Corporate sponsors are worth more than popular support. When it comes to getting reelected, they would rather hyponotize voters with TV commercials, instead of getting support based on responsably looking out for the interests of the taxpayer.
The republicans who vote against this bill will give you a long line of bullshit, but essentially they can't vote against the bill because they will lose their corporate sponsors.
Permalink: I_smell_corruption.html
Words: 457
Category: politics
11/08/06 11:58 - ID#21758
America Saves itself
I have been so worried about the fate of this country. We have been traveling down a very dangerous path.
The manipulation of fear and prejudice for political gain is a recipe for disaster, it is the most severe challenge democracies face. The manipulation of fear, and the demonizing of a shadowy enemy is a classic tactic for the strangling of democracy. This has killed democracies in the past, and it was very alarming to see it's ugly head in America again.
Thank you America for stepping back from the brink of fascism. I had a feeling that we would not be so easily fooled into submission. I knew that there were certain things that America would not stand for like suppression of the freedom of speech, and our right to demand answers and accountability from the government. I had a feeling that these strengths would carry us through this radical un-American regime. And I'm happy to say we still have the will and the power to save ourselves.
We have a lot stacked against us. The bush administration broke a lot of constitutional boundaries designed to protect us. They showed no regard for checks and balances, they even flaunted the subversion of the constitution and the rule of law openly, and sadly some Americans fell for it.
This is one of the most secretive administrations in history, information control is a high priority for Bush and company, and that is very dangerous. National security was the excuse, but saving face or avoiding retribution was often the real motive. Thankfully some whistleblowers had the courage to release the information about Abu Graib, the NSA spy program, the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, and countless others.
This is also one of the most manipulative administrations in history. They are not afraid to lie in our face. to say things like "Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists. And there are al-Qaeda in Iraq" Bush conveniently left out the fact that those al-Qaeda were trying to overthrow Saddam so he couldn't possibly give them WMD. But this was one of many manipulative sales pitches. lip service to renewable energy and handouts to oil companies. He read the CIA report that the war in Iraq was making us less safe and he lied to us about it before the report was leaked. Uranium from Africa was obviously false, he lied about it.
Subverting the rule of law. Abandoning treaties like the ABM treaty, Kyoto, small arms trade limiting treaties. Calling the Geneva conventions "quaint" the list goes on. This executive branch put itself above the law, that's not how America works.
Wonton destruction of international ties, disregard for allies and other nations. I don't know about you but I wish we had some friends left in this world.
Starting another Arms Race, by trying to scare the world into submission. it doesn't work that way. You need allies, friendships make you safer because you have more people watching your back. All you fuckers who were talking about letting France and the UN dictate American foreign policy.. "oooh nobody can hold us back.. we won't let anybody tell us what to do.. we know everything.. our ideas are better than everyone else.. we don't need to have a conversation or ask for advice.. or check with people who know more about the middle east than we do..." How do you feel now? We invaded Iraq, kicked out the inspectors, and said, bombs are better, we need to kill first and look for WMD later. hey, good fucking job asshole. next time all you Bill Kristols of the world Shut The Fuck Up!!
Man did we lose a lot. We really have. What a shame we don't learn from history. It took us this long to figure stuff out.
Now we have a health care system that serves the drug companies before the people. the Medicare prescription Drug giveaway, you know the government can't negotiate for lower prices? Why not the Veterans Administration drug plan does? oh, right, corruption, line the pockets of the richest Americans.
That explains why we're giving tax breaks to the richest companies in the world, the oil and gas companies. Hello!! they're making record profits, they don't need any subsidies, or any help, they need to be taxed!
Let's spend billions on a war, where all the money goes into the pockets of defense contractors who aren't doing their job. They are charging us tax payers $80 for a case of Coca Cola! They are driving around with empty trucks because they get paid by the trip, they don't have to deliver anything.
Yea global warming doesn't exist, how come the only people who believe that crap are scientists that are paid by the energy industry or the Republican party.
and the deficit, what happened to fiscal responsibility? Bush DOUBLED the deficit in just 6 years, sending us 600 billion more in debt, way to go you fiscal conservative you.
I think the internet helped us a lot. We quickly found out if somebody was lying by doing a Google search and finding the transcript or video of the lie. Tons of concerned people were linking back and forth, pointing to official documents and mind blowing investigations. Secrecy is not so easy nowadays.
We have just overcome something big. This Republican government war drunk with power.
What does a Democratic Congress Mean
Contrary to Republican scare tactics, I don't think it is going to be payback time. I don't think the most liberal policies are going to be suddenly thrust down the throats of an unwilling electorate. and I don't think the democrats are going to be the congressional bullies. Although no matter what they do they couldn't possibly top the last 4 years of republican rule.
It boggles the mind when conservatives warn against polarizing the country. Does "you're either with us or your with the terrorists" ring a bell? how about straight party line votes in congress, and wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage. I have the scream when republicans talk about Democrats being divisive.
But back to the point, I think Democrats know that a lot of people should be on their side, and they're going to show it. They aren't going to be divisive, there are so many issues ahead of things like abortion and gay marriage, they won't have time for those, nor do they want to bother calming oppositional voices. Republican citizens have been voting against their best interests for a long time. And over the past 6 years Republicans have become the party of the Super Rich, while the middle class has shrunk. The Democrats are going to go for those broadly supported yet long neglected issues that everyone agrees upon.
The democrats will work on raising the minimum wage. They got a bill to the floor but the Republicans put abolishing the estate tax on the same bill so it failed. Anyone have an estate worth over $7 million? ok none of you will pay the estate tax, only .5% of estates pay any tax whatsoever. gee sounds like a pressing issue
They will also work on Energy independence. Scary huh? too bad everyone supports that. getting rid of fat oil companies and high gas prices, sound's like a far left fringe issue to me.
They will also investigate where our tax money is being wasted. Hmm I thought that used to concern republicans.. I guess power and campaign contributions made looking after our tax dollars a non-issue, wasting tax money became a great policy when it went to their friends in the oil and pharmaceutical industries.
There will be investigations on waste and fraud in Iraq.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan will be amended so that the government can buy in bulk and negotiate for lower prices. Hmm saving my money.
Social Security is not in as much danger as the Republicans made you believe, small changes will be put forward eventually.
Taxes, you have to face it, the whole mantra of lower taxes is a bunch of bullshit that republicans pay lip service to. How come the middle class hasn't felt any tax relief? and how come our jobs pay less, and our money buys less than it has since the 60s? The Republicans have lowered taxes all right, on the top 1% of America. And guess what it hasn't stimulated the economy at all!!!
There is a simple equation for this economic taxation mumbo jumbo. If you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to the people who are most likely to spend it. Wow, that's not so hard, how come nobody told the president? The people most likely to spend money are Those who need new cars, a new water heater, a new roof, a paint job, a new TV, to pay off their credit card, go out to dinner for once, a new house, maybe they stop renting and buy a house, new shoes, a winter jacket, a new computer on and on. It's an indisputable fact that the middle and lower class spend money, not the richest 1%. We have given all the tax breaks to the top 1% they put it in the bank, the end. No seriously someone has $4 million in assets, you give them an extra $8,000, they might expand their business and hire new employees, but most likely it's going to the bank to earn interest. They don't really need that money, they're ok as it is, they can choose to spend it or not. Unlike you and me, who really need that new car but we can't afford it, we really need to do some home repair, and we need to buy a house and stop living paycheck to paycheck. We will spend the money, that stimulates the economy.
So eventually we're going to have to get some money into the pockets of the middle class and the working poor. We will have to raise taxes on the rich... go cry me a river, I said we're going to have to raise taxes on the rich. Sorry, the democrats won't be acting on that one any time soon, they can't cause the Republicans will manipulate it for all it's worth, "high taxes, kill jobs, hate America" you know, the usual. Bush's tax cuts will expire in 2010 but that's the best that can happen, and you know the Republicans will cry foul, even though it's the middle class that has been fouled for so long.
I just feel bad that the Democrats have to deal with Iraq, they were all lied to by Bush, and he knew it all along. Now we have a horrible mess, and those who aren't responsible will have to deal with it.
The manipulation of fear and prejudice for political gain is a recipe for disaster, it is the most severe challenge democracies face. The manipulation of fear, and the demonizing of a shadowy enemy is a classic tactic for the strangling of democracy. This has killed democracies in the past, and it was very alarming to see it's ugly head in America again.
Thank you America for stepping back from the brink of fascism. I had a feeling that we would not be so easily fooled into submission. I knew that there were certain things that America would not stand for like suppression of the freedom of speech, and our right to demand answers and accountability from the government. I had a feeling that these strengths would carry us through this radical un-American regime. And I'm happy to say we still have the will and the power to save ourselves.
We have a lot stacked against us. The bush administration broke a lot of constitutional boundaries designed to protect us. They showed no regard for checks and balances, they even flaunted the subversion of the constitution and the rule of law openly, and sadly some Americans fell for it.
This is one of the most secretive administrations in history, information control is a high priority for Bush and company, and that is very dangerous. National security was the excuse, but saving face or avoiding retribution was often the real motive. Thankfully some whistleblowers had the courage to release the information about Abu Graib, the NSA spy program, the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, and countless others.
This is also one of the most manipulative administrations in history. They are not afraid to lie in our face. to say things like "Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists. And there are al-Qaeda in Iraq" Bush conveniently left out the fact that those al-Qaeda were trying to overthrow Saddam so he couldn't possibly give them WMD. But this was one of many manipulative sales pitches. lip service to renewable energy and handouts to oil companies. He read the CIA report that the war in Iraq was making us less safe and he lied to us about it before the report was leaked. Uranium from Africa was obviously false, he lied about it.
Subverting the rule of law. Abandoning treaties like the ABM treaty, Kyoto, small arms trade limiting treaties. Calling the Geneva conventions "quaint" the list goes on. This executive branch put itself above the law, that's not how America works.
Wonton destruction of international ties, disregard for allies and other nations. I don't know about you but I wish we had some friends left in this world.
Starting another Arms Race, by trying to scare the world into submission. it doesn't work that way. You need allies, friendships make you safer because you have more people watching your back. All you fuckers who were talking about letting France and the UN dictate American foreign policy.. "oooh nobody can hold us back.. we won't let anybody tell us what to do.. we know everything.. our ideas are better than everyone else.. we don't need to have a conversation or ask for advice.. or check with people who know more about the middle east than we do..." How do you feel now? We invaded Iraq, kicked out the inspectors, and said, bombs are better, we need to kill first and look for WMD later. hey, good fucking job asshole. next time all you Bill Kristols of the world Shut The Fuck Up!!
Man did we lose a lot. We really have. What a shame we don't learn from history. It took us this long to figure stuff out.
Now we have a health care system that serves the drug companies before the people. the Medicare prescription Drug giveaway, you know the government can't negotiate for lower prices? Why not the Veterans Administration drug plan does? oh, right, corruption, line the pockets of the richest Americans.
That explains why we're giving tax breaks to the richest companies in the world, the oil and gas companies. Hello!! they're making record profits, they don't need any subsidies, or any help, they need to be taxed!
Let's spend billions on a war, where all the money goes into the pockets of defense contractors who aren't doing their job. They are charging us tax payers $80 for a case of Coca Cola! They are driving around with empty trucks because they get paid by the trip, they don't have to deliver anything.
Yea global warming doesn't exist, how come the only people who believe that crap are scientists that are paid by the energy industry or the Republican party.
and the deficit, what happened to fiscal responsibility? Bush DOUBLED the deficit in just 6 years, sending us 600 billion more in debt, way to go you fiscal conservative you.
I think the internet helped us a lot. We quickly found out if somebody was lying by doing a Google search and finding the transcript or video of the lie. Tons of concerned people were linking back and forth, pointing to official documents and mind blowing investigations. Secrecy is not so easy nowadays.
We have just overcome something big. This Republican government war drunk with power.
What does a Democratic Congress Mean
Contrary to Republican scare tactics, I don't think it is going to be payback time. I don't think the most liberal policies are going to be suddenly thrust down the throats of an unwilling electorate. and I don't think the democrats are going to be the congressional bullies. Although no matter what they do they couldn't possibly top the last 4 years of republican rule.
It boggles the mind when conservatives warn against polarizing the country. Does "you're either with us or your with the terrorists" ring a bell? how about straight party line votes in congress, and wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage. I have the scream when republicans talk about Democrats being divisive.
But back to the point, I think Democrats know that a lot of people should be on their side, and they're going to show it. They aren't going to be divisive, there are so many issues ahead of things like abortion and gay marriage, they won't have time for those, nor do they want to bother calming oppositional voices. Republican citizens have been voting against their best interests for a long time. And over the past 6 years Republicans have become the party of the Super Rich, while the middle class has shrunk. The Democrats are going to go for those broadly supported yet long neglected issues that everyone agrees upon.
The democrats will work on raising the minimum wage. They got a bill to the floor but the Republicans put abolishing the estate tax on the same bill so it failed. Anyone have an estate worth over $7 million? ok none of you will pay the estate tax, only .5% of estates pay any tax whatsoever. gee sounds like a pressing issue
They will also work on Energy independence. Scary huh? too bad everyone supports that. getting rid of fat oil companies and high gas prices, sound's like a far left fringe issue to me.
They will also investigate where our tax money is being wasted. Hmm I thought that used to concern republicans.. I guess power and campaign contributions made looking after our tax dollars a non-issue, wasting tax money became a great policy when it went to their friends in the oil and pharmaceutical industries.
There will be investigations on waste and fraud in Iraq.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan will be amended so that the government can buy in bulk and negotiate for lower prices. Hmm saving my money.
Social Security is not in as much danger as the Republicans made you believe, small changes will be put forward eventually.
Taxes, you have to face it, the whole mantra of lower taxes is a bunch of bullshit that republicans pay lip service to. How come the middle class hasn't felt any tax relief? and how come our jobs pay less, and our money buys less than it has since the 60s? The Republicans have lowered taxes all right, on the top 1% of America. And guess what it hasn't stimulated the economy at all!!!
There is a simple equation for this economic taxation mumbo jumbo. If you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to the people who are most likely to spend it. Wow, that's not so hard, how come nobody told the president? The people most likely to spend money are Those who need new cars, a new water heater, a new roof, a paint job, a new TV, to pay off their credit card, go out to dinner for once, a new house, maybe they stop renting and buy a house, new shoes, a winter jacket, a new computer on and on. It's an indisputable fact that the middle and lower class spend money, not the richest 1%. We have given all the tax breaks to the top 1% they put it in the bank, the end. No seriously someone has $4 million in assets, you give them an extra $8,000, they might expand their business and hire new employees, but most likely it's going to the bank to earn interest. They don't really need that money, they're ok as it is, they can choose to spend it or not. Unlike you and me, who really need that new car but we can't afford it, we really need to do some home repair, and we need to buy a house and stop living paycheck to paycheck. We will spend the money, that stimulates the economy.
So eventually we're going to have to get some money into the pockets of the middle class and the working poor. We will have to raise taxes on the rich... go cry me a river, I said we're going to have to raise taxes on the rich. Sorry, the democrats won't be acting on that one any time soon, they can't cause the Republicans will manipulate it for all it's worth, "high taxes, kill jobs, hate America" you know, the usual. Bush's tax cuts will expire in 2010 but that's the best that can happen, and you know the Republicans will cry foul, even though it's the middle class that has been fouled for so long.
I just feel bad that the Democrats have to deal with Iraq, they were all lied to by Bush, and he knew it all along. Now we have a horrible mess, and those who aren't responsible will have to deal with it.
Permalink: America_Saves_itself.html
Words: 1790
Category: politics
11/03/06 12:53 - ID#21755
Blatant Corruption
Corruption. It's hard to believe it has gotten this bad.
The lone office in Iraq keeping track of government waste bribery and corruption. Closed. Just like that. Republican leaders decided that they didn't want a lawyer watching over their business.
Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office
The problem is not waste, corruption, fraud, bribery and everything else going on in the corporate paradise that is Iraq. No, the problem is that You, me and the American Media find out about it. The problem is that some corrupt bastards who are profiting off of the blood of our soldiers and the Iraqi people, have gone to jail. The problem is that Americans who know the truth are getting pissed off. The solution, Hide the truth better.
First stop reporting Casualty figures to the UN:
Then Stop investigating corruption in Iraq
BRILLIANT!! Hitler and Goebbels would be proud.
Thugs are ruling this country. They don't care about the Troops, the Taxpayers, and they certainly don't give a damn about that once honorable country called America. They only care about their own power, and they will do absolutely anything to preserve that power, anything.
The US public must remain in ignorance of the facts. Reality is a bad thing. The war in Iraq is going well, and Rumsfeld is doing a Heckuva job.
Why do Bush's statements always directly contradict the classified reports?
Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos:
Shoot the Messenger:
And Get More PR and Propaganda Quick!!
Analysis from NY Times
The Great Divider:
Our Country has been taken over by Liars, Thugs, and dangerous megalomaniacs.
The lone office in Iraq keeping track of government waste bribery and corruption. Closed. Just like that. Republican leaders decided that they didn't want a lawyer watching over their business.
Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office
The problem is not waste, corruption, fraud, bribery and everything else going on in the corporate paradise that is Iraq. No, the problem is that You, me and the American Media find out about it. The problem is that some corrupt bastards who are profiting off of the blood of our soldiers and the Iraqi people, have gone to jail. The problem is that Americans who know the truth are getting pissed off. The solution, Hide the truth better.
First stop reporting Casualty figures to the UN:
Then Stop investigating corruption in Iraq
BRILLIANT!! Hitler and Goebbels would be proud.
Thugs are ruling this country. They don't care about the Troops, the Taxpayers, and they certainly don't give a damn about that once honorable country called America. They only care about their own power, and they will do absolutely anything to preserve that power, anything.
The US public must remain in ignorance of the facts. Reality is a bad thing. The war in Iraq is going well, and Rumsfeld is doing a Heckuva job.
Why do Bush's statements always directly contradict the classified reports?
Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos:
Shoot the Messenger:
And Get More PR and Propaganda Quick!!
Analysis from NY Times
The Great Divider:
Our Country has been taken over by Liars, Thugs, and dangerous megalomaniacs.
Permalink: Blatant_Corruption.html
Words: 351
Category: politics
10/18/06 07:28 - ID#21753
Tyranny in America.
Today Bush signed a bill that effectively abolishes the most basic legal right in civilized society.
Back in the 11th century civilized peoples realized that there was a need to limit the power of the king. One of the most basic limits to this power, was the right to know why you are in jail, and to challenge that detention in court.
The power of Kings, and Presidents must be limited, because they will throw you in jail just because they do not like you. Annoying the president is not a crime, but if you are never allowed to have a trial, you can rot in jail for the rest of your life, for nothing.
Does it get any more basic than that? I don't think so.
The law now says "Enemy Combatants" can be locked up without charge, and they can be condemned to death without knowing why they are in jail or what evidence there is against them.
So who is an enemy combatant? Anyone. No Bullshit.
A "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" can declare anyone an enemy combatant, citizen or not. Forgive me if I don't trust an appointed tribunal with no legal mandate, to decide who can be stripped of all their rights and held indefinitely without charge. Every American should be in the streets demanding that the president stop pissing on the document he swore to protect. THE CONSTITUTION!!
The beauty of America is that we are ruled by a set of laws, not by the whims and suspicions of tyrants. Had we been living by that standard and the rest of the constitution, we would have never gotten to this point.
What can I say. This is the exact opposite of America. Bush is an Outlaw. We must impeach him before any more damage is done to this country. This is an abomination.
90% of those in Guantanamo have been held without charge for over 4 years. Many, if not the Majority of them are innocent. People were turned over to the US by Afghan warloards just so they could get the $5,000 reward.
By the way, there is something inherently wrong with declaring somebody an "Enemy" BEFORE having a trial.
More Reading:
Video: Olbermann; The Day Habeas Corpus Died:
The President Gets His Wish: He's the Dictator:
Shame on Us All:
NY Times, Rushing Off a Cliff:
Back in the 11th century civilized peoples realized that there was a need to limit the power of the king. One of the most basic limits to this power, was the right to know why you are in jail, and to challenge that detention in court.
The power of Kings, and Presidents must be limited, because they will throw you in jail just because they do not like you. Annoying the president is not a crime, but if you are never allowed to have a trial, you can rot in jail for the rest of your life, for nothing.
Does it get any more basic than that? I don't think so.
The law now says "Enemy Combatants" can be locked up without charge, and they can be condemned to death without knowing why they are in jail or what evidence there is against them.
So who is an enemy combatant? Anyone. No Bullshit.
A "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" can declare anyone an enemy combatant, citizen or not. Forgive me if I don't trust an appointed tribunal with no legal mandate, to decide who can be stripped of all their rights and held indefinitely without charge. Every American should be in the streets demanding that the president stop pissing on the document he swore to protect. THE CONSTITUTION!!
The beauty of America is that we are ruled by a set of laws, not by the whims and suspicions of tyrants. Had we been living by that standard and the rest of the constitution, we would have never gotten to this point.
What can I say. This is the exact opposite of America. Bush is an Outlaw. We must impeach him before any more damage is done to this country. This is an abomination.
90% of those in Guantanamo have been held without charge for over 4 years. Many, if not the Majority of them are innocent. People were turned over to the US by Afghan warloards just so they could get the $5,000 reward.
By the way, there is something inherently wrong with declaring somebody an "Enemy" BEFORE having a trial.
More Reading:
Video: Olbermann; The Day Habeas Corpus Died:
The President Gets His Wish: He's the Dictator:
Shame on Us All:
NY Times, Rushing Off a Cliff:
Permalink: Tyranny_in_America_.html
Words: 418
Category: politics
10/01/06 03:07 - ID#21749
They were Warned
The Bush administration is incompotent. How come nobody has ever faulted them for not stopping the 911 attacks? They are treated as fearless leaders, whose opinions are as reliable as Jesus' ghospel. And for what? They're the ones who fucked up in the first place and let 911 happen. Now ABC and Fox 'News' blame Clinton? Yea right, you jackofs were the ones in office! We're supposed to forget.
Below in this news article we find out a few things.
Condoleezza Rice was directly warned by the Director of the FBI George Tenet that he was concerned about imminent danger of terrorist attacks inside the US. The meeting happened on July 10, 2001 Months before the attack. they "came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."
The 911 commission had no knowledge of this meeting untill this week when Bob Woodward's new book came out "State of Denial" Commissioners are suggesting a coverup. A serious crime.
Also "Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden," That's a bad sign.
See the entire article at Raw Story
They keep updating the article at the end as news breaks about this.
a 911 Commissioner speaks out here at Think Progress
State of Denial: Two months before 9/11, Rice gave the 'brush-off' to 'impending terrorist attack' warning
(Update: Former Counsel to the 9/11 Commission suggests that "[v]ery possibly, someone committed a crime" by engaging in a "cover-up" of the warning)
According to a new book written by Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, two months before the September 11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the "brush-off" to an "impending terrorist attack" warning by former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator.
An article in Friday's New York Times first mentioned the warning, and a front page book review of Woodward's State of Denial in Saturday's edition provides more details.
"On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack," David E. Sanger reported on Friday. "But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."
Sanger also reported that Tenet told Woodward that before 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was "impeding" efforts to catch Osama bin Laden.
"Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden," wrote Sanger. "Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda."
Saturday's New York Times review claims that in Woodward's book, Rice "is depicted as a presidential enabler, ineffectual at her job of coordinating interagency strategy and planning."
"For instance, Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they'd been given 'the brush-off' - a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice's recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton's allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counterterrorism measures aggressively before 9/11," writes Michiko Kakutani.
Saturday's Washington Post has more details regarding the meeting.
"The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention," Peter Baker reports for the Post.
"Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported," the article continues. "Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review."
Below in this news article we find out a few things.
Condoleezza Rice was directly warned by the Director of the FBI George Tenet that he was concerned about imminent danger of terrorist attacks inside the US. The meeting happened on July 10, 2001 Months before the attack. they "came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."
The 911 commission had no knowledge of this meeting untill this week when Bob Woodward's new book came out "State of Denial" Commissioners are suggesting a coverup. A serious crime.
Also "Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden," That's a bad sign.
See the entire article at Raw Story
They keep updating the article at the end as news breaks about this.
a 911 Commissioner speaks out here at Think Progress
State of Denial: Two months before 9/11, Rice gave the 'brush-off' to 'impending terrorist attack' warning
(Update: Former Counsel to the 9/11 Commission suggests that "[v]ery possibly, someone committed a crime" by engaging in a "cover-up" of the warning)
According to a new book written by Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, two months before the September 11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the "brush-off" to an "impending terrorist attack" warning by former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator.
An article in Friday's New York Times first mentioned the warning, and a front page book review of Woodward's State of Denial in Saturday's edition provides more details.
"On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack," David E. Sanger reported on Friday. "But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."
Sanger also reported that Tenet told Woodward that before 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was "impeding" efforts to catch Osama bin Laden.
"Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden," wrote Sanger. "Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda."
Saturday's New York Times review claims that in Woodward's book, Rice "is depicted as a presidential enabler, ineffectual at her job of coordinating interagency strategy and planning."
"For instance, Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they'd been given 'the brush-off' - a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice's recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton's allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counterterrorism measures aggressively before 9/11," writes Michiko Kakutani.
Saturday's Washington Post has more details regarding the meeting.
"The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention," Peter Baker reports for the Post.
"Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported," the article continues. "Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review."
Permalink: They_were_Warned.html
Words: 730
Category: politics
09/14/06 11:14 - ID#21746
News, Torture, lies, and Nuclear Bombs
I updated this post a bit since yesterday, I posted it in a hurry.
Couple things in the news today, if you're wondering how I find out about all this stuff, you only need to know one website
The Huffington Post
When you can'd read the news, listen to WHLD 1270am
(1)
George Bush is on Capital Hill today with Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove Lobbying congress to pass his plan to deal with terror suspects after his whole Enemy Combatant - Military Tribunal system was shot down by the Supreme Court.
The Militaty Tribunal system was invented by the Bush administration for the War on Terrorism. (the executive branch cannot invent a new judicial branch that doesn't comply with American law and the Constitution).
So today Bush is working to get his new system "legalized" by congress (funny, he didn't ask them in the first place).
But Bush's system still doesn't comply with the Constitution. I guess that Bush forgot that his job was to protect and uphold our constitution. Colon Powell and John McCain are opposed to the bill because of how it deals with military detainees. But Bush on the other hand, is stomping around Capital Hill screaming "Subvert the Constitution! This is an American Fascist Revolution!" ok, there I said it. The Bush Agenda is un-American.
(2)
That leads me to my point on Torture, because the president is lobbying in support of a law his administration wrote that allows people that they capture to be tortured, furthermore, any 'evidence' obtained under torture should be used in court against them.
The problem is torture doesn't work. You get bad intelligence, you end up with a lot of wild goose chases, and a lot of innocent victims disappeared and tortured, maybe killed for no reason. People will say anything if you torture them enough, whether it's true or not.
any interrogation manual will say you need to develop rapport, a relationship based on trust, so that they will give you credible information
(3)
Lastly A house report about Iran's Nuclear Program is filled with fabrication and lies. "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"
That's right "Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring."
The intelligence community says 3.5% and Rumsfeld hears 90% ?!?!?!? no wonder we are in the mess we are today.
Couple things in the news today, if you're wondering how I find out about all this stuff, you only need to know one website
The Huffington Post
When you can'd read the news, listen to WHLD 1270am
(1)
George Bush is on Capital Hill today with Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove Lobbying congress to pass his plan to deal with terror suspects after his whole Enemy Combatant - Military Tribunal system was shot down by the Supreme Court.
The Militaty Tribunal system was invented by the Bush administration for the War on Terrorism. (the executive branch cannot invent a new judicial branch that doesn't comply with American law and the Constitution).
So today Bush is working to get his new system "legalized" by congress
(funny, he didn't ask them in the first place). But Bush's system still doesn't comply with the Constitution. I guess that Bush forgot that his job was to protect and uphold our constitution. Colon Powell and John McCain are opposed to the bill because of how it deals with military detainees. But Bush on the other hand, is stomping around Capital Hill screaming "Subvert the Constitution! This is an American Fascist Revolution!" ok, there I said it. The Bush Agenda is un-American.
(2)
That leads me to my point on Torture, because the president is lobbying in support of a law his administration wrote that allows people that they capture to be tortured, furthermore, any 'evidence' obtained under torture should be used in court against them.
The problem is torture doesn't work. You get bad intelligence, you end up with a lot of wild goose chases, and a lot of innocent victims disappeared and tortured, maybe killed for no reason. People will say anything if you torture them enough, whether it's true or not.
any interrogation manual will say you need to develop rapport, a relationship based on trust, so that they will give you credible information
(3)
Lastly A house report about Iran's Nuclear Program is filled with fabrication and lies. "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"
That's right "Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring."
The intelligence community says 3.5% and Rumsfeld hears 90% ?!?!?!? no wonder we are in the mess we are today.
Permalink: News_Torture_lies_and_Nuclear_Bombs.html
Words: 465
Category: politics
09/12/06 09:29 - ID#21745
Politicizing Tragedy -links-
ok, the anniversary of 911 is to heavy for me to get into. so I'm going to summarize things in a couple of links.
Kieth Olberman gives a great summary. He noted those moments of unity after 911 when everyone followed the presidents lead, and compared that to now. Where has this tragic administration lead us? There isn't even a memorial at ground zero five years later. And we ignited a civil war in Iraq for no reason, and lost international respect.
Here's the video and transcript:
The Path to 9/11 - ABC television's "Docu Drama"?? I call it "intentional propaganda" to put it nicely, or a flagrant manipulation of the truth with some occasions of portraying the exact opposite of what happened. Yea, it's true sorry to say
You can watch clips on Youtube. Here are 9 clips from the user p911sux
More Stuff Here
And the president interrupts our lives for a prime time speech to make excuses for the Iraq War. Good idea Mr President, exploit it like a photo op to advance your failed agenda in the middle east. How moving. . . asshole
Enjoy your dose of News Video.
Update:
Read Ajay's post too
Good reflection.
Kieth Olberman gives a great summary. He noted those moments of unity after 911 when everyone followed the presidents lead, and compared that to now. Where has this tragic administration lead us? There isn't even a memorial at ground zero five years later. And we ignited a civil war in Iraq for no reason, and lost international respect.
Here's the video and transcript:
The Path to 9/11 - ABC television's "Docu Drama"?? I call it "intentional propaganda" to put it nicely, or a flagrant manipulation of the truth with some occasions of portraying the exact opposite of what happened. Yea, it's true sorry to say
You can watch clips on Youtube. Here are 9 clips from the user p911sux
More Stuff Here
And the president interrupts our lives for a prime time speech to make excuses for the Iraq War. Good idea Mr President, exploit it like a photo op to advance your failed agenda in the middle east. How moving. . . asshole
Enjoy your dose of News Video.
Update:
Read Ajay's post too
Good reflection.
Permalink: Politicizing_Tragedy_links_.html
Words: 252
Category: politics
09/04/06 12:02 - ID#21743
Bad News
Just in case the Mainstream media doesn't report this story, I'm posting it here for the record. This is bad news. We already know that the millitary situation in Iraq is getting worse, now here is a distinctive sign that the political situation is in trouble as well.
From the Telegraph UK
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 9/3/2006)
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.
However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.
"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."
According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.
"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."
Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."
Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.
"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.
From the Telegraph UK
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 9/3/2006)
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.
However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.
"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."
According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.
"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."
Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."
Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.
"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.
Permalink: Bad_News.html
Words: 929
Category: politics
08/18/06 01:07 - ID#21740
Lieberman, Lamont, and the primary
Really, this Joe Lieberman stuff blows my mind. Read (e:joshua,177)
We need a vibrant primary system for our form of democracy to work. Finally we have a primary that energizes people and the looser walks away like a spoiled brat with too many campaign contributions. Lieberman has no cause, his platform is routine election rhetoric. He is simply running because too many special interests have invested money in him.
Why are so many republicans applauding Lieberman? Do they think we need two identical political parties, and a democracy that never disagrees about anything? 60% of Americans think that we need a speedy conclusion to the Iraq War, but somehow the right thing to do is to exclude their opinion from Washington. That is anti-democratic, un-American lunacy.
Primaries are key to the American democratic system. In this country, before TV, primaries were as important as the general election. The vast majority of voters participated in both the primary and the main election. That's the only thing that makes this country's winner take all, plurality election system actually work.
In the general election we can't have 3 candidates, because one of them could be a "spoiler". There is the possibility that an unpopular candidate will win the election with only 38% of the vote. Simply because in a 3 way race the more popular candidate, that would have beaten the others in a 1 on 1 race, can loose the election by having their votes "stolen" by the third candidate. Vibrant primary elections are essential to this type of voting system, because having just 2 candidates to choose from each year just isn't enough.
There are more than 2 types of people in this country. Our winner take all system has failed the people of America, which is why only half of us actually vote. Half of the people in this country stay home because we don't have a candidate that motivates them to get off the couch. Ned Lamont succeeded because he got people off the couch, and the Democratic Party could learn a lot from his strategy.
Instead of competing for a few Republican votes, Democrats need to get more voters off the couch by speaking to their interests. Many people in this country are ignored and disenchanted with the system, but they would vote if anyone actually spoke to their cause.
How can Ned Lamont be a "far left, wacko fringe candidate" when 60% of the country agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq? That is a huge group of voters that agree with him, and we need their perspective to be heard in Washington. What if Ned Lamont wins, do you think we're going to suddenly leave Iraq? No of course not, it just means that we will have a new and essential perspective in Washington.
When we talk about the war, and approving $87 billion for Iraq we will have to reconcile our differences as a nation. We need ALL the varying perspectives in America to participate in this debate, that's democracy. It's the reasonable discussion and reconciliation of different opinions. These discussions need to happen in Washington, if someone is wrong they will be proven wrong during a debate on policy. People agree with Ned Lamont, and their perspective must be heard. All perspectives should be heard, and through the virtue of intelligent discussion the correct answer to our problems will be found.
What's the alternative, having 2 parties that agree about most things before the debate even begins? And what about 30%-60%-80% of people that don't have their voices heard? Twisted logic states that by leaving them out we are doing the right thing for our democracy. Oh maybe in a post 9-11 world we don't want democracy. That's it, we'll be safer and better off without democracy.
This is the first time in many years that the primary system has worked. Usually only 10%-20% of eligible voters even bother with the primaries, this time there was a 40% turnout, double the usual. Primaries tend to be uneventful because the incumbent has so much money and name recognition that they are very difficult to beat. Not this time, the incumbent was so unpopular that the voters kicked him out. That's democratic justice, it's the foundation of our country.
A true patriot does not sacrifice the democratic bedrock of this country, just to promote their own opinion. Joe Lieberman looks like a spoiled brat.
We need a vibrant primary system for our form of democracy to work. Finally we have a primary that energizes people and the looser walks away like a spoiled brat with too many campaign contributions. Lieberman has no cause, his platform is routine election rhetoric.
He is simply running because too many special interests have invested money in him. Why are so many republicans applauding Lieberman? Do they think we need two identical political parties, and a democracy that never disagrees about anything? 60% of Americans think that we need a speedy conclusion to the Iraq War, but somehow the right thing to do is to exclude their opinion from Washington. That is anti-democratic, un-American lunacy.
Primaries are key to the American democratic system. In this country, before TV, primaries were as important as the general election. The vast majority of voters participated in both the primary and the main election. That's the only thing that makes this country's winner take all, plurality election system actually work.
In the general election we can't have 3 candidates, because one of them could be a "spoiler". There is the possibility that an unpopular candidate will win the election with only 38% of the vote. Simply because in a 3 way race the more popular candidate, that would have beaten the others in a 1 on 1 race, can loose the election by having their votes "stolen" by the third candidate. Vibrant primary elections are essential to this type of voting system, because having just 2 candidates to choose from each year just isn't enough.
There are more than 2 types of people in this country. Our winner take all system has failed the people of America, which is why only half of us actually vote. Half of the people in this country stay home because we don't have a candidate that motivates them to get off the couch. Ned Lamont succeeded because he got people off the couch, and the Democratic Party could learn a lot from his strategy.
Instead of competing for a few Republican votes, Democrats need to get more voters off the couch by speaking to their interests. Many people in this country are ignored and disenchanted with the system, but they would vote if anyone actually spoke to their cause.
How can Ned Lamont be a "far left, wacko fringe candidate" when 60% of the country agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq? That is a huge group of voters that agree with him, and we need their perspective to be heard in Washington. What if Ned Lamont wins, do you think we're going to suddenly leave Iraq? No of course not, it just means that we will have a new and essential perspective in Washington.
When we talk about the war, and approving $87 billion for Iraq we will have to reconcile our differences as a nation. We need ALL the varying perspectives in America to participate in this debate, that's democracy. It's the reasonable discussion and reconciliation of different opinions. These discussions need to happen in Washington, if someone is wrong they will be proven wrong during a debate on policy. People agree with Ned Lamont, and their perspective must be heard. All perspectives should be heard, and through the virtue of intelligent discussion the correct answer to our problems will be found.
What's the alternative, having 2 parties that agree about most things before the debate even begins? And what about 30%-60%-80% of people that don't have their voices heard? Twisted logic states that by leaving them out we are doing the right thing for our democracy. Oh maybe in a post 9-11 world we don't want democracy. That's it, we'll be safer and better off without democracy.
This is the first time in many years that the primary system has worked. Usually only 10%-20% of eligible voters even bother with the primaries, this time there was a 40% turnout, double the usual. Primaries tend to be uneventful because the incumbent has so much money and name recognition that they are very difficult to beat. Not this time, the incumbent was so unpopular that the voters kicked him out. That's democratic justice, it's the foundation of our country.
A true patriot does not sacrifice the democratic bedrock of this country, just to promote their own opinion. Joe Lieberman looks like a spoiled brat.
Permalink: Lieberman_Lamont_and_the_primary.html
Words: 734
Category: politics
08/16/06 11:02 - ID#21739
The Path toward Peace
To Bring peace to the Middle East. We must strengthen moderate Arab leaders and their assertion that the US has good intentions.
We need to bring extremists back to the middle, and we need public opinion around the world to do the same. We need to verify the notion that the US is a benevolent country that looks out for everyone's best interests.
This is not possible through military destruction.
Military destruction always does the exact opposite. It proves the militants right, it says that America is a greedy country, and that we do not care if we destroy people's lives to get what we want. It makes people believe that they have to defend themselves from American might, and they must build a military resistance.
To prove the militants wrong, we must live by international law and we must respect human rights and human life above all else. Snubbing the United Nations and rushing weapons to Israel is the wrong decision if we are looking for peace in the Middle East.
We need to bring extremists back to the middle, and we need public opinion around the world to do the same. We need to verify the notion that the US is a benevolent country that looks out for everyone's best interests.
This is not possible through military destruction.
Military destruction always does the exact opposite. It proves the militants right, it says that America is a greedy country, and that we do not care if we destroy people's lives to get what we want. It makes people believe that they have to defend themselves from American might, and they must build a military resistance.
To prove the militants wrong, we must live by international law and we must respect human rights and human life above all else. Snubbing the United Nations and rushing weapons to Israel is the wrong decision if we are looking for peace in the Middle East.
Permalink: The_Path_toward_Peace.html
Words: 172
Buffalo Pride weekend marathon 
Raggedy Annie Plushapalooza '96 
I don't have a problem with the importation of drugs from other countries. The question is who should pay for the FDA to inspect them and see if they fall into US standards and who will oversee that to make sure that there isn't corruption. For example some Japanese drugs use ingreidants that arn't legal here. How do you deal with that are those products banned or do you give them a not tested by FDA mark. Or would the FDA run tests on them.
If a company in Canada can make a drug for cheaper then good for them. But what if they pay there employees less or do other unetical things to cut corners? If that is the reason they are cheaper then we don't want them here. But the other question is would cheaper drugs by competeators cause us companies to cut there profit margin on drugs they sell or would they figure lets fire people or not do as much R&D? You don't want greed in the drug business and companies do need to have etihics after all you are trying to help people but it is still a business. It is a delicate balance between lowering drug costs and still making sure the medicine is good. Off course if everyone in the country had good insurance then the insurance companies would pay most of the cost of medicines.
I'm kinda agaisnt bidding on drug prices for the government. I think it is a good idea. But the reason i'm not for it is how bidding usaly works. Most times us humans go with who ever gives us the best price. That is a bad idea you need to follow who gives the best service for the price. For example what if I said I could get your package to some place for half the price of Fedex or UPS. You would say great and pick me instead. But what I don't tell you is that all my packages I send with drug cartells who are going to that area allreday.
I also don't like the concept of the first 100 hours. It is the wrong mindset they should concentrate on doing what they think is right not some agenda in a short amount of time so they can say they did something.
I'm not trying to be critical of you, so I hope I didn't come across that way. The important thing for me is that we do the right thing (offer everyone basic health care). It is far too important to let the politicians BS us over it. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles and studies out there, so if you find some more with some information that contradicts what the CBO says I'd be happy to give it a look.
Jason, thanks for the correction, both parties are corrupt! I didn't mean to infer that the democrats are purely concerned with the will of the people, they're self interested contribution hoggs too.
you found some interesting studies on the perscription drug program. I know that fixing this loophole won't fix the problem, but I'd like to stop wasting more money than we have to. Thanks for the empirical articles though, I'll check them out more.
Josh, I also like the idea of bipartisanship and cooperation. The democrats are just trying to show off now. They almost need to though, in this type of short attention span culture.
I am worried about the likelihood of bipartisainship too. If you read Matt Tiabbi's "Worst Congress Ever" he talks about how cold the attitude has become in congress. people on opposite sides of the aisle don't develop friendships anymore. It's disappointing, and I hope we can get less confrontational.
I also agree with what (e:jason) just wrote concerning the Republicans and their desire to block Medicare reform. Its wrong, plain and simple. The consequences of not giving the medical industry what they want, however, remains to be seen. They can simply choose not to produce and develop drugs if they don't get the price point they want, which is cynical but ultimately very likely. I'm no fan of the drug industry anyway, but its absolutely true that these companies sink upwards of $1b into development of a drug. As such they are entitled to recouping what they invested into R&D, and perhaps *gasp!* make a profit. That is a separate issue though - ultimately, why is it bad for the government to negotiate with these companies and possibly save taxpayer dollars? Aren't the politicians supposed to be stewards of our coffers?
The problem I have with what the Democrats are currently trying to do with the 100-hour agenda is that they are trashing a campaign promise they paid to the American people concerning a "new era of bipartisan cooperation." You cannot say this, then when you win the election ultimately say "Well, we have a 100-hour agenda now, and we'll bring in our 'new era of bipartisan cooperation' at a later date, when we've rammed through what we want to ram through." Similarly, "bipartisan cooperation" doesn't mean "approve our bills or you are not cooperating."
Believe me, I know why the Democrats are doing what they are doing, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. However, what they are doing now is going to create an impetus for the exact OPPOSITE - zero bipartisan cooperation. And Democrats ultimately are going to need some cooperation from Republicans to pass bills. Republicans never really cared about bipartisanship, but its also true that they never claimed to like the Democrats now are.
For years I have been a voracious reader of online political commentary from left, right and center perspectives. A common complaint for years from liberals brought about the suggestion that when Republicans passed bills they wanted (that included full votes, by the way) this was tantamount to 'mob rule.' Now that Democrats are doing what they are doing now, is it fair to characterize it as 'mob rule?'
:::link:::
I found this analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. It is entitled "Would Prescription Drug Importation Reduce U.S. Drug Spending?"
Take a look at it, and if you don't have time right now I'll give you the conclusion at the bottom:
"On the basis of its evaluation of proposals to date, CBO has concluded that permitting the importation of foreign-distributed prescription drugs would produce at most a modest reduction in prescription drug spending in the United States. H.R. 2427, for example, which would have permitted importation from a broad set of industrialized countries, was estimated to reduce total drug spending by $40 billion over 10 years, or by about 1 percent.(14) Permitting importation only from Canada would produce a negligible reduction in drug spending."
Very interesting. Why would the Democrats propose this as the be-all, end-all when the savings are going to be minimal? It sounds more like wanting to score political points than to actually save us money. This deserves further research and consideration.
I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about who is corrupt and who is not corrupt. You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming one party is corrupt, or owned by special interests, and the other is not.
An example: Kennedy's proposal for Medicare is to make THAT the Universal Health Care system. I assume by reading your comments on Medicare that you're not a fan, so I would assume you can agree what a financial disaster that would be, especially in a place like New York where Medicare is so bloated.
I support lowering drug prices, and allowing the government to negotiate. I think the fact that we can't is wrong. I don't think of it as a situation where we can just soak the Pharm corporations, and assume that everything will be fine. It won't - there are a lot of factors other than drug prices that determine how expensive our health care is.
The whole system needs to be overhauled and leaned out so it can be what it is intended to be - a system that gives people access to the basic health care staples that everyone needs. The 100 hours really is a bunch of nonsense - Medicare could never be fixed so fast. If it is done quickly, but with little thought or consideration, we will just be back at the drawing board again in a couple of years.