OP/ED: Cracks in the Facade

Originally posted by semperfortis
I will say it again, I write this piece now in an attempt to articulate my outrage at the depredations of this deeply corrupt and amoral liberal agenda. These things need to be discussed if we are to have any hope at restoring some sort of civil public discourse in this country.

Would that it were possible. The dem's have been shelved since the elephants moved into control. The lack of dialogue you poo poo has been created by the neocon hate machine beginning presently ruining this country.

Thing is the evidences of Bushes lies are a matter of public conjecture (when they have been reported on the liberal media) and I don't need to/can't go running around screaming factsfactsfacts.

Excuses for ineptitude.

I tend to think that the primary reason Grover and the others refuse to write a coherent rebutal instead of shrieking CONSERVATIVE HATE (a rather juvenile response if you ask me) is that they deep down realize how deeply destructive this liable is and can't bring themselves to face the fact that they have been had.

Do you mean "libel"?

Liberals have not "been had". Conservatives have been had because there is nothing conservative at all about this administration. Let's face facts - which I know you abhor - this oiligarchy has taken a huge surplus and created a deficit which our great grandchildren will be paying off and for what? Their ineptitude has made the world a much less safe place for Americans and everbody else. Per usual, the rich get richer while the poor and middle class get screwed. But you keep on defending them. With your ilk it's not about truth it's about an ideology of intolerance and strict adherence to party politics no matter what state of desperation sets in.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by seattlelaw]

Hey Seattlelaw,

I wrote that as a parody to illustrate the overly simplistic and hateful view of another poster.

Read the post and you will see where I am talking about.

Originally posted by semperfortis
ceci
I have no idea how to write an op/ed, but I will tell you why I support the president, if that's ok on here.

First and foremost, I am an American and he is my president. I believe in the Red, White and Blue, I am patriotic and believe in supporting my Commander and Chief. Corny? Gullible? maybe, but it is how I was raised and who I am.
Second, I have been in combat and watched while people made the hard decisions. Decisions made to send ME into a situation that could possibly have cost my life, and I felt sorry for them. Sorry because I saw what that decision did to them emotionally. It was easier to go out and fight, than have to stand back and decide who lives and who dies. President Bush makes those decisions everyday and will live with them the rest of his life.
I can appreciate a man with convictions. Though I am sure this will make some of you laugh, some mad and others argue, I do not care. I believe that President Bush has moral convictions and has held the high ground under all of the liberal hate directed at him. He has held his head up and made the decisions that he believes are correct. The job I voted him in there to do.
I believe the economy is booming at an incredible rate. That is my perception, when in the end all that matters is our perceptions. I am doing better financially than I ever have and the tax cuts are a true relief to me.
I am not easily swayed by the media. The incredible and sometimes subtle, attacks on the President mean very little to me. As I have stated, anything that any of you can find to point one way, can easily be found to point the other. Links? Editorials? Show me one, I will show you one that disputes it. They are all basically BS ( I abhor using those terms, but it fits). This in mind, I can only rely on what I see is actually happening. I base my opinions on that. Not on what the media tells me I should or should not think. I travel extensively and observe first hand this wonderful country and the effects of our robust economy. (Yes, there are always some doing worse, not everything is perfect) I am speaking the majority.
I am a warrior at heart and believe in taking the fight to the enemy. I have and still serve my country, and support the war in Iraq 100%. I appreciate that we have not been attacked after 9/11 and still have most of our freedoms intact. MOST. (I hate the phone scan, but that is another thread) I love that regardless of the polls or favorableness of His administration, he stays the course. I admire His fortitude.
Final note: I have issues with some of the decisions made by this Administration, yet I understand that he is only the President. One man, one section of the three branches of government. To place everything wrong with this country in his lap, is ludicrous to the extreme, or a complete misunderstanding of how our government works.
I consider President Bush to be one of the finest Presidents in my lifetime. Second only to the Great Ronald Regan.
I have tried to write this without any sniping, snide comments, liberal bashing or other words of hate. I read too much of that on here. The fact that we have different opinions should encourage us to engage in complex conversations and not wind up cutting each other because we think differently. (as so often happens on here) I do not in anyway consider myself an intellect, I just really work at staying up to date with the political "goings on" and the affairs that directly effect me.
So this is why I support President Bush, The United States of America and all that she stands for.

OK go ahead, cut away.

Very well said semperfortis. While I disagree with both Bush and the Republician policies. I most certianly respect your reasons for feeling (and voting) the way you do...can you do the same for me is the rub though? There is an old adage that expresses an attitude sorely missing these days..."I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Grover,

Yes I have defended your right to say it. For well over 20 years I have fought for your right to say anything you wish. Not to the death, yet.... and one hopes it wont come to that. LOL

Just because you differ from me does not make you wrong, just different.

My Granny taught me that.

And that's why I asked for someone to please write why they support Mr. Bush. I'm sorry that it turned out into a bickering match in the previous pages. But, I would much rather have a cogent discussion about political differences than partisan name-calling. And I thank semperfortis for kindly honoring my request.

I agree with grover. I may not agree with a dissenting view from mine, but I will defend it no matter what. That is what the First Amendment is all about.

I really love you guys.

Just because it gets heated and we disagree, doesn't mean I don't think you are all great, especially you Grover and Ceci.

I guess that sometimes people take it personal on here, but that is not me. I'm here to debate., To gain fresh perspective, and meet interesting people. If everyone agreed with me, how interesting would that be?

Ceci, you are right though, it is nice to not bicker so much.

For my part, thank you very much semperfortis. You are great too. And, I would much rather keep the dialogue open than have it shut off indefinitely. We can agree to disagree, but it doesn't mean that I won't listen.

Heck. I even listen to Muaddib even though he doesn't think I do.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion
Grover I do not know who these mythical people are that believe these things you think. Yes I am a Bush supporter, voted for him twice in fact. No I don't think Jesus would endorse either party, I rather suspect that if Jesus returned to Earth there would be no need for political parties.

Sir you are entitled to your opinion and I will not attack it...despite what some claim I do indeed respect others viewpoints but when I am attacked for stating what i honestly feel to be true, then I will defend myself.

I will address what I quoted of your post though. I have heard many comments like what I mentioned both in person by hard core fundamentalists, and on blahblahblah radio from the likes of Coulter and Limbraugh and Savage to name three. While I know or at least hope those three idiots do not represent the mainstream conservative republican viewpoint, I have my doubts as well. I have also seen comments in the same vein in the local paper, in fact they appear quite often as southwestern Virginia is a very conservative place. I hope that the majority of conservatives and republicans are more intelligent than some of the stuff I have read (and heard) come out of the mouths of its so called representives I cannot help recall John Stewert Mill's quip..."While it is not true that all conservative people are stupid, it is true most stupid people are conservative. "

Grover, Qoting those who make thier living inflaming the passions of thier listeners, and using it to draw conclusions about the beliefs of avergae people is nonsensical. SHould I assume that because you ar eliberal that you swallow every word from the lips of Michael Moore as wholesale truth? Or that you even agree with him on all issues? What about Al Franken, Am I to assume that because he purports to "represent" liberals that all liberals have his self same beliefs?
Do you have any idea how many liberals attempt to use Jesus to justify thier programs?
Have you never seen the Bumper sticker reading "jesus was a liberal social activist?"
Have you never heard a liberal use jesus statment to a young ricj man who wished to know how to gain entrnace to heaven as a justification for wealth redistribution?

The fact that middle to low income Americans continue to vote against their own best interests in today's America is to me one of the more amazing facets to the modern political landscape. We can discuss the nuances of either party's position on a myriad of given subjects, but the big picture is rather easy to see, and simple to understand. The advent of "talk radio" in the late eighties-early nineties is largely responsible for this phenomenon. It's no secret that the GOP generally favors Corporations, Big money, and military spending. Whilst the Dems generally favor low to middle class subsidy, environmental (anti corporate,) unions, and the like. Which of these do you think is in YOUR best interest.

One of the common demonized terms (besides: liberal) you hear today is "wealth redistribution." Most GOP politicians use this word to bring forth mental images of people abusing welfare, and high taxation. What they don't ever tell you is that the entire American system is based on "wealth redistribution." If welath wasn't redistributed there would be no capitalism. BTW, what's the difference in "welath redistribution" as the GOP defines it, and giving a SMALL percentage of your taxes to the poor?

There was a time in America i.e. late forties, fifties, sixties....when the middle-class became a true force in American politics, and dialogue. This didn't come about by chance, or because all of a sudden the corporations became more "friendly," it came about because the prevailing attitude in our country was the "American dream" was attainable by ANYONE that was willing to work, and live a responsible life. Most understood, that while not perfect unions served as a counter-weight to corporate interests, and served by strength in numbers to gain the average American a liveable, sustainable wage, and retirement. Compare the middle class, and jobs that existed then to the McEconomy of today.

As my Grandmother used to always tell me: "Son, only rich folks vote for republicans." Well, alot has changed in the world since my 'grannies time, especially in how the remaining lower-to-middle class voters vote, but the general platform of either party is about the same.
I just don't understand WHY anyone would vote AGAINST their own best interest.
My .02 -Wayne

Rwearjr,

I read your post and I had to respond because in it you voiced several issues that I have thought about since the 2000 elections.

Originally quoted by Rwearjr
The advent of "talk radio" in the late eighties-early nineties is largely responsible for this phenomenon. It's no secret that the GOP generally favors Corporations, Big money, and military spending. Whilst the Dems generally favor low to middle class subsidy, environmental (anti corporate,) unions, and the like. Which of these do you think is in YOUR best interest.

With this I agree. Mr. Reagan started to kill the unions in the eighties with his "union busting" measures. He believed in the corporation. As a result, middle-to-low income people started suffer. But since his message about the simplicities of "Americana" sounded good and appealed to these classes of people, imho, they tended to forget that they were being had.

You would think that the Dems would be beneficial to working class people. However, around this same time the word, "liberal" was coined. From my view of history (and people can refute me if I'm wrong), this word is reactionary because it violently dismissed the moves toward multi-culturalism, gender and the strides people were making in the work place. And because Big Business had to be satisfied, unions became the target of Republicans. Without the union, there would be no benefits, no strikes, and literally no voice for working class people. And the straw that broke the camel's back was the air traffic controllers strike.

One of the common demonized terms (besides: liberal) you hear today is "wealth redistribution." Most GOP politicians use this word to bring forth mental images of people abusing welfare, and high taxation. What they don't ever tell you is that the entire American system is based on "wealth redistribution." If welath wasn't redistributed there would be no capitalism. BTW, what's the difference in "welath redistribution" as the GOP defines it, and giving a SMALL percentage of your taxes to the poor?

Well, where do you think "welfare queen" came from? This word has also been demonized by the right solely because it racialized and classified people who were taking from the system without giving anything back. "Wealth Distribution" is another term that connotates the fiscal disparities between the classes. You get the impression because corporations are making money that the economy's good. During the years of the second Mr. Bush, it has not. It was good during the Clinton era. During that time, people were making a decent living and were able to find a job. Clinton, for all the lip service paid to him, was a fiscal conservative when it came to the budget. He got rid of the debt. And he had a surplus. Because of the surplus, education and other institutional programs were being funded.

Another point about the "welfare queen" term: it also contributed to the association with crime. While it is true that no one in any class likes crime, people were pigeon-holing the poor into this category because they were "taking from hard-working people" without remorse. Add the lack of jobs then (as it is now) and the crime rate goes up. Poor people get incarcerated. Prison terms become stiffer. And the rich get richer with the poor out of the way. So much for the three strikes rule.

Most understood, that while not perfect unions served as a counter-weight to corporate interests, and served by strength in numbers to gain the average American a liveable, sustainable wage, and retirement. Compare the middle class, and jobs that existed then to the McEconomy of today.

Yes. As I quoted above, unions were the voice of the working people. Now that the unions are being slowly dissassembled, not to mention the laws that prevent people from striking (especially in L.A. and New York), there is no effective means of protest for better wages, benefits or other disputes that working people might have. And enter, the illegal immigration system. Sadly enough, these hard working people trying to make a better life have become the new "slave" class of the corporation. They undermined the unions because undocumented workers were willing to work in almost any condition that unionized people would not. And therefore, you have the unemployment rate in America. The corporations found a new class of people to exploit and make money from. With the threat of the INS, the undocumented worker would continue to work in order to stay in the shadows while working people were lulled by "family values" and morals.

I just don't understand WHY anyone would vote AGAINST their own best interest.

Hence the book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas. He goes into detail, exploring this very notion. It's a fascinating and sad read because working people are really being rail-roaded in this economy at their own expense. For Mr. Bush and his friends, working people are only a tool to exploit. You don't hear Mr. Bush complaining about the economy. It's doing just fine for his bank account.

Just my opinion, humbly, of course.



[edit on 19-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Ceci, I will give "Whats the matter with Kansas" a read. Your actually the second person to recommend it. Peace-Wayne

Semperfortis,

I appreciate you. I appreciate your feelings and i appreciate you fighting for me, so that i can live in a free country.

We are lucky to have you, and you will never run across a more loving community than this one!


[edit on 19-5-2006 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by dgtempe
Semperfortis,

I appreciate you. I appreciate your feelings and i appreciate you fighting for me, so that i can live in a free country.

We are lucky to have you, and you will never run across a more loving community than this one!

[edit on 19-5-2006 by dgtempe]

AWWWW Thanks
A pat on the back like that is what makes it all worth while, especially after a day like yesterday. (BAD DAY)
Thanks again.

Rwearjr,

No problem. It's a very good book--to discuss and to think about the issues surrounding the elections.

The problem is that people aren't voting their best interests anymore. They want the quick fix. Or they readily believe the lies being told to them by a complicit and willing media.

What is frustrating is that the working class is still suffering; yet they refuse to acknowledge that because "faith" is all that they have left.

Nothing more, nothing less.

When you have no money, there's always "faith" because you don't want to open your eyes up to the realities.

Absolutely, whats funny to me also is these labels that have stuck to certain groups when an objective look at the group/issue involved usually shows it to be insanity. Some examples:
Tree-Hugging, Environmentalist Wacko.
Real Def: Someone that is very concerned that we are slowly destroying the ONLY planet on which we can survive, and wants to see legislation, conciousness, and corporate responsibility to help turn this around..................man, thats just plain nutty.

Wealth redistribution,Sociaist wacko, Liberal
...Real Def: Someone that believes in wealth redistribution for the poor and working class, as opposed to wealth redistribution to the ALREADY wealthy class......................nuts or what?

Liberal Elitist, Pointy headed pinko.
Real def: College professor which teaches that science MAY be a valid explanation for creation, Government actually CAN be used to the benefit of society, poilitical action and awareness should be a part of your responsibility as a citizen, STOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT.............insane huh?

Femanazi, lesbo wacko
Real Def: Any woman that would like to have equal rights in a generally male dominated society, and realizes that just like civil rights they won't be given to you, they must be taken.

Labor Union, lazy bloodsuckers, thugs.
Real Def: People that go to work everyday trying to make a product that believe because they are an integral part of the company they deserve a fair slice of the pie. You know, a slice of that $40,000,000 retirement package the CEO just got (which by the way was just fine with the right) The people that ended child labor, gave you the 40hour workweek, the weekend, the concept of retirement and benefits, time and a half after forty etc......

What would working people have today if we would have stood up and backed our unions in the eighties when the great union-bust began? Would we have had the political muscle to have stopped NAFTA, GATT? Would we have had the muscle to STOP congress from allowing outsourcing of our jobs? Would those jobs still be here today? Gosh listen to me, those ideas are just plain EXTREME aren't they? Folks we have been voting AGAINST whats good for us for a long time now, and while it's very subjective, my personal belief is if we continue much longer down this same path the middle class will simply cease to exist.
History teaches us well that when 10% of the populace has 90% of the money, and 90% of the populace has 10% of the money...........Well, can you picture peasants and pointy sticks?
Just another .02 -Wayne

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Rwearjr]

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Rwearjr]

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Rwearjr]

They've already called this the second "Guilded Age". The rich get richer. And the poor? Let them eat "yellow cake".

Wow Ceci, you almost made me laugh for a second
But then the seriousness of whats happening around us tempered my smile

I've said it before, but I can't help but repeat it....I knew this was NOT going to be one of the better presidential admins of my lifetime in 2000, but I could have never in my wildest dreams imagine things would be as they are now. Like a nightmare that you can't wake from, I swear sometimes the lunacy seems surreal!

What really adds to the unbelievable factor here is how many people that support this charade (you know the remaining 31%, my god who are these people?) when challenged, immediately resort to the phrase: "Bush Bashing."

Huh? How can you even dare? Can you not remember a time when the Republican congress spent over $28,000,000, and over three years chasing Clinton down with that witch hunter Ken Starr? For Gods sakes we IMPEACHED OUR PRESIDENT OVER A BLOWJOB?

Now today, Clinton has been cleared of every scandal he was accused of other than the Lewinsky affair, and the alleged crimes this admin may have been involved in make Clinton look like a choir boy. Wow, and these people have the unmitigated gall to say they are "tired of the Bush bashing."
Absolutely unbelievable.....Have they no shame? -Wayne


[edit on 20-5-2006 by Rwearjr]

[edit on 20-5-2006 by Rwearjr]

No, they don't. And if you read any of the earlier pages, you would see why as I posted several articles which investigate the sociology of "Bush Supporters". They called me every name in the book. They accused me of putting up "liberal propaganda". And of course, because the articles featured their habits and their conceits, they called what I did "condescending".

You can go back and read the posts for yourself when you have time. Judge for yourself if they are condescending or not.

I don't think they are. I think they paint a shameful, if not accurate picture of the 29 percent of Americans who support Bush and are unrepentant about it. And like I told Muaddib during one of our "parlays", I challenged them to make a rebuttal to grover's piece. Semperfortis did. And for that, as you read, he has earned my utmost respect because he earnestly attempted to articulate his feelings of why he supported the POTUS.

As for Muaddib? He didn't take the challenge. But he is still saying that we are spreading lies.

I'm not going to go into another "posting marathon" like I did before, but I would like people to read the op/ed piece from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in The Washington Post. I respect his work and his character--especially because Rosa Parks worked for him and eventually became one of his greatest supporters and friends. And in this article, he is writing about the news of impeachment. However, what he is doing first, is going to start a bi-partisan committee to investigate the Bush Administration:

No Rush to Impeachment

As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials. But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.

We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible. The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses.

This is just for people's information.

When was Clinton "cleared" of Lying under Oath?

Who "cleared" him?

Did I miss something that important?

Can you define the word "was"?