Third Party & Independents Archives

Whistle Stop Tour

Arrogant? Naïve?

OK… I want to believe Obama will bring us together.

I want to believe the man can turn us into the America we used to be. Can he get people to believe in the AMERICAN DREAM and stop looking for handouts?

A friend of mine. She hardly ever watches the news. Never follows what is going on day to day. She asked me, "Is Obama going to give us our $1,000 stimulus checks? I hear people talking about it and i know you would know."

I told her, "No." I said, "As of right now, they will be taking less in our weekly paychecks because the last stimulus checks didn't work like they thought they would." Her reply? "I know alot of people who will be disappointed."

I have been told, right here on this site, Obama changes his mind based on the circumstances of the moment. What I don't understand is, why it is alright for him to do that, when it has been 'political suicide' for just about anyone else.

The Whistle Stop Tour....to me it is the biggest sign of ARROGANCE I have ever seen.

I watched quite a bit of it today My take on it: Preaching & Praise.

If George Bush had even had a preacher speak before him during his inaugaration? ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKE LOOSE.

There was a black preacher in Baltimore. The man made one hell of a speach. It's TOO BAD it did not include ALL AMERICANS. Now that he had his Whistle Stop Tour....maybe the WHITE preacher he chose for inaugaration day won't be bashed as badly as he has already been.

I know...we have people here on this blog who will take this as racist. It is NOT racist.

None of us are any better than the rest of us. None of us should get treated better than anyone else. (Sexual orientaion is still separate from racial discrimination.)

I grew up just after Martin Luther King was assassinated. I had black friends all through school. I never treated anyone like they were of a lower class than I.

I do not know where this 'America' is that people say is still segregated.
I live in Indiana now....don't see it. I grew up in Western NY...never saw it.

Obama thinks he is Lincoln? Anyone else think the man is being a LITTLE cocky?

More people out there protecting HIM than troops deployed in Afghanistan? Will he send his protectors to help the disenfranchised in Afghanistan??
The only good thing that can come from him being so stuck on himself? He WILL do what is best for all of us and tell the 'fringes' to stick it in their......

BTW, last Saturday I was at my father-in-law's 100th birthday party...He is a big time Republican. Pictures of President Bush and his wife all over the place...autographed ones..the ones people who contribute large sums of money receive.... Anyway...his niece and her hubby were there telling all who would listen about how wonderful Obama is....their son and his wife have invites to the inaugaration...I asked her about Obama backpeddling on his promises...(the amount of jobs he'll create)...she said...well he can change his mind...I said other people aren't allowed to do that...they are called flip floppers or stupid...she said...you are saying bad things about Obama but I don't hear you saying anything bad about McCain....I said...why would I? McCain isn't even in the picture anymore...she said...well we better not talk anymore I have to visit with other people...THE END...is this the way debates will go about Obama?

Oh, another BTW...I was told that economic circumctances have changed - DUH - so it's OK for Obama to change his jobs prospect...in another article right here on this blog...

His changing his mind IS NOT the issue...

Posted by Dawn at January 18, 2009 2:04 AM
Comments
Comment #273758

Dawn,

Has the bottom dropped out of your world? You sound so bitter…

Obama is a good man. He will do his best. If his best is not good enough, it may very well be too late to recover from this mess your father-in-law’s hero got us into.

Clinton was accused of waffling (changing his mind) on policy…his was a successful administration (ended better than it began). Cheney/Bush held the course, and the result be damned, and we ended up in the pooper. Perhaps some flexibility isn’t a bad thing.

When the Democrats in Congress began to grouse about Obama’s suggestions on the stimulus, he said to them, “come up with a better idea, there is no pride of authorship here, come up with something better, and we’ll include that”. Wow, give me ‘waffling’ like that, every time.

Arrogant for riding a train? Arrogant for winning an election? Arrogant for having preachers preach?

As an atheist, I’d just as soon disavow all religious connection to this inaugural, but I don’t think it’s very likely for that to happen. But, how many prayer breakfasts did Cheney/Bush have? How many times did Billy Graham come to the White House to have some sort of pray-in? How much influence did Pat R and Jerry F have on politics in Washington? Who talked the current president out of continuing embryonic stem-cell research?

I take a teaspoon of apple cider vinegar every morning. It helps take the bitter out of my life…and, keeps me off medications.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2009 6:40 AM
Comment #273761

When did punctuation become an expression of individual art on WatchBlog?

Hit “enter” at the end of a paragraph, not after each period.

Use a single period between sentences, not three or four of them.

It makes it very difficult for a reader to figure out what you’re trying to say when you don’t know how to write.

Further, you don’t know what you’re talking about:

If George Bush had even had a preacher speak before him during his inaugaration? ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKE LOOSE.

Really? Here’s the schedule from Bush’s 2005 inauguration:

Beginning at 11:30am ET
The United States Marine Band
Call to Order and Welcoming Remarks
The Honorable Trent Lott, United States Senator from Mississippi
Invocation
The Rev. Dr. Louis Leon, St. John’s Church, Washington D.C.

Musical Selection
Susan Graham
Oath of Office Administered to Vice President Richard B. Cheney
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Musical Selection
Denyce Graves
Oath of Office Administered to President George W. Bush
By the Chief Justice of the United States The Honorable William H. Rehnquist
The Inaugural Address
The President of the United States, The Honorable George W. Bush
Musical Selection – God of Our Fathers
Performed Jointly by
The United States Marine Band
The United States Army Herald Trumpets
The United States Navy Sea Chanters
Benediction
Pastor Kirbyjon H. Caldwell

The National Anthem
Technical Sergeant Bradley Bennett
The United States Air Force Band

Bush had a pastor give an invocation before the speech, and another give a benediction. No hell broke loose but your hypocrisy.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 18, 2009 9:08 AM
Comment #273763

LawnBoy, I took the liberty to clean up Dawn’s punctuation. Hopefully, Dawn won’t mind.

I agree completely that our writers need to pay more attention to punctuation and grammar. We don’t have an “editor” whose job it is to clean up the writing, spelling, punctuation and grammar before or after a post is published, so our writers must be responsible for keeping the quality of their posts above par.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at January 18, 2009 10:49 AM
Comment #273764

Dawn, had no problem reading through your article. I like to see different writing styles, which portray the way folks express themselves. Your points are noted BUT, I am continually blown away by editors, writers, bloggers, etc beating the minutiae out of the perceived personality of this celebrity or that politician. Surely you realize that every second of O’s waking moments are choreographed to the least detail. While much will be written about his tendencies and portrayals of his demeanor I tend to ignore that kind of fluff. Like any politician Obama is part of a political machine in that you operate from a consensus and not off the top of your head or what you personally might like to do. I would venture to say that Obama has not wrote a single speech, made a public performance, nor has his wife, that didn’t have the political machine’s stamp of approval. Obama’s selection of a preacher or speaker is made in consensus with a room full of people. If his political mood changes it’s because the mood of the political machine has changed, etc. Now, to the point that he can coerce the machine to give him the lead he will take it. But, I suggest he has little wiggle room to push his own personality or ideas.
Otherwise, we have these huge problems: $80T of debt, 1 of 10 hedgefunds under. 7000 killed in Mexico and the border area last year, 15% unemployment, 40M uninsured, 28K mortgage defaults each month, 64k businesses filed for bankruptcy last year, country being partially run by an illegal (NAU) government, etc. For me there is plenty to blog about. I fail to appreciate whether a member of the duopoly is arrogant or makes an odd choice for a speaker, etc. Seems more in tune with Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 18, 2009 12:03 PM
Comment #273766
country being partially run by an illegal (NAU) government

What part is that?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 18, 2009 12:49 PM
Comment #273769

The amount of money being spent on the upcoming coronation is obscene. If the anointed one had an ounce of compassion he would have insisted upon a simple inexpensive affair and asked both government and private donors to contribute to their favorite charity instead.

How many times have we been told that we must all make sacrifices for the good of the nation in these perilous times? Judging from the extravagant spectacle about to unfold one could actually believe that the financial crisis we read about is just a mirage. There will be no sacrifice on the part of Obama or his minions in installing this man to his throne.

One thing is for certain, Lord Obama and his cohorts know how to spend the taxpayers money. Unnecessary profligate spending is called “Pork”. This extravaganza is more appropriately labeled “Caviar”.

Posted by: Jim M at January 18, 2009 1:22 PM
Comment #273771

Jim M,

High horses are to be dimounted from…you should try it.

The only taxpayor monies involved in the inauguration, is for security and those few items that have been on the tax tab for every inauguration. All the froofraw is being paid for by those contributors, myself included, who sent in a little so we could see a good man become president. You obviously did not contribute, so complaining about it is not yours to do.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2009 1:52 PM
Comment #273773


Jim M, the country is in the dumps. The people have a wait and see attitude. This is unacceptable because hardly anyone is going shopping.

The corporate oligarchy has ponied up a lot of cash to make this the biggest coronation ceremony in history. We need all the feel good and here he comes to save the day that these trivial millions can buy if we are going to get back to don’t worry, be happy, go shopping.

Obama’s train ride is just part of the spectacle, a publicity stunt. Notice, there is no side by side comparison between Obama’s and Lincoln’s train rides.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2009 2:18 PM
Comment #273774

Dawn, that’s real good. You support conservative ideology which brought us to now, and now you long for the good old days.

I know you are not an ardent Republican supporter, but, asking for Democrats to take us back to the good old days is like asking the Passengers of the Titanic to deal with the holes just ripped in the ship’s side. And asking one person, Obama, to save the nation, is a bit much to ask, don’t you think?

Either the American people get behind a national effort and plan and STICK with it for years until it has a chance to bear fruit, or this country is going down just as surely as the Titanic did. It is not up to Obama to save the nation, it is up to Obama to point the way, and up to the rest of us to take that path.

Realistically speaking, so far so good. Enough Republicans in the Senate recognize the wisdom of what I am saying here and are refusing to walk lock step with dissenters and obstructionists insisting the nation go over the edge now, so that their wealthy friends are spared a slow demise. Which is precisely what blocking deficit spending now would mean, or keeping government revenues low, increasing the deficit size.

Republicans would do very well for themselves to call a halt to the pork barrel spending, unnecessary projects spending, and much of the military’s black hole budgets, and get on board for health care reforms that have a chance of halting the inflation in that industry. These are some of the most important actions Republicans and conservatives could take going forward. And such actions will not go unappreciated.

Obama has vowed to work to get the economy back on its feet and reform entitlement spending and programs to prevent their tripling and quadrupling our national debt in decades to come. Conservatives would do well to lose their previous intentions of killing those programs, and get on board with methods to halt their spiraling costs and find means to fund them that don’t break the spine of America’s government.

The good news for conservatives is, all Obama roads lead to employers eventually being relieved of the health care burden as overhead costs, allowing them to become considerably more competitive with all other nation’s who provide government health care insurance and payments.

That means that conservatives should climb on board reforms which raise business taxes 60 to 80% of what they now pay in health insurance benefits, in exchange for no longer having to provide employer health care to their employees. It is a gain for the entire business and corporate community save the very smallest of businesses with less than 10 employees, who, should and will be exempt from increased taxation. Obama has already called for tax cuts for small businesses. He gets it.

The question is, will conservatives such as yourself get it and stop trying to line up the public against the execution wall, and go with the flow as long as the flow benefits conservative’s business pockets as well?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 18, 2009 2:30 PM
Comment #273778

Publisher,

Thank you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 18, 2009 3:05 PM
Comment #273780

I have went out of my way to not watch anything Obama. It’s hard to do, but it really freaks me out to think the people of this country backed a George Soros “cult of personality” to represent our country. I did see HBO will present the Hollywood style inauguration. I wonder if Paris will make a speech, or maybe they could hold an American Idol audition before the swear in.

The way I see it all I can do is put my head down, work my ass off at my job and sit on my money. See if I’m still standing after 4 years and hope and pray that the pendulum has swung back to common sense.

Btw…I had no problem reading this post…but I’ve been reading for quite a while now.

Posted by: Matt at January 18, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #273785

Matt-
We had eight years of this kind of Common Sense. You have committed the unfortunate error of taking campaign rhetoric too seriously.

As for George Soros, I suggest you do more research into the man’s past. He’s a proponent of open government, a capitalist who worked to open up Eastern Europe to the Free Market.

Your charge of a “George Soros” cult of personality is deeply ironic if you understand how Soros became symbolic of the far-left politics he never actually supported. He donated money to and collaborated with Move-On.Org because he felt, with justification, that Bush was making government more secretive, more unaccountable, more invasive.

For that, he was, as inevitably happened with the Bush cult of personality, accused of being a supporter of the left. He wasn’t the first, nor the last centrist to be so misrepresented. And for what? So that the Bush administration could paint every bit of opposition to it as a result of irrational partisan politics, rather than principled disagreement.

So Matt, do me a favor: take a deep breath and get off everybody else’s back. Your people made a mess of things, and they’re paying for that, not for being on the wrong side of a brainwashed political movement. Obama won handily because people saw him as a capable leader, and after eight years of Bush weren’t about to pass up the chance to elect one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2009 5:20 PM
Comment #273789

Dawn,
Young enough to have missed the day when All Americans was found to be Stupid I’ll spare you the lecture. For why I do not see President Obama as the Choosen One, I do see him as a product of your generation and President Bush as a product of his fathers generation.

So why I doubt if President Obama and the Democratic Party can on their own build a Better World. Knowing that citizens like your Father-in-Law are not ready to throw in the towel, I do dare you to ask him if Americas’ Failure is an Option?

Thus, why the facts on Day One of Presidennt Obama will be different than the ones he learned on the journey to the White House, I do believe that if the Republicans are going to hold Office in two years than the Best American Conservative Ideas and Vaulves need to come forward.

For why Matt and others can go hide their head in the sand and pray that someday their party will return to power. Given the strong Independent Movement in America, I do see where a Political Party could take a stance on the other side of Mr. Pickens Plan to make America Energy Independent which will make or break President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Henery Schlatman at January 18, 2009 7:06 PM
Comment #273790


Womanmarine, my perspective on the NAU is shaped by what I’ve read and political trends I’ve observed.
First, some gisted excerpts from Pat Choate’s “Dangerous Business”.

US sugar producers were able to force a full NAFTA exemption for their product. However, US tomato growers had not such luck and today Mex. has 40% of the tomato industry. Fewer than 1% of the trucks carrying Mex produce into the country are inspected.
NAFTA:1993, NAFTA advocates such as Robert Pastor view it as the first step in a longer term initiative to integrate the economical and political institutions of the three countries leading to the creation of a NAU.


Feb 2001: Less than one month after taking office Bush met with the Mexican President and established the Security and Prosperity Partnership. They agreed to work with Canada on an economic community, negotiate long and short term agreements on immigration and labor issues, immediately implement NAFTA provision giving Mex. trucks and drivers full access to US highways, devise a trilateral approach to energy development and support the extension of NAFTA to all of the Americas.

Oct. 2004: Council on Foreign Relations established a trilateral task force that would recommend on creating a NA Community. Comprised of and funded by major business leaders, ten panelist from each country was selected.
May 2005, Council on Foreign Relations Task Force released it’s report “Building a North American Community”.
Create an annual summit meeting by the three leaders.
Create North American Advisory Council (NAAC).
Adopt a common security perimeter for NA, harmonize existing entry/exit procedures, joint container inspections, and share travel data on foreign nationals.
Adopt a common tariff, create permanent roster of trade judges.
Establish a NA Investment Fund to grow Mexico..
Create resource security strategy allowing US to invest in Mexican and Canadian energy development.
Educational ties.

Further defined in a news release:
Full labor mobility among the three nations.
Common security perimeter by 2010 - North American border pass (biometrics).
Unified border action plan with expanded custom facilities.
A single economic space in North America.
Seamless movement of goods within NA/
A NA energy strategy.
Expanded temporary worker programs.
Institutionalization of the tri-partite partnership.
Establishment of a NA Investment Fund to build Mexican infrastructure.
Permanent tribunal for trade and investment disputes.
Annual NA summit.

April 2005: The Council of the America’s (COA) headed by ex US Ambassador to Mexico, James Jones, and reported out basically the same plan.

March 23, 2005: The three leaders of NA and issued a press release” (Gist) Develop common border security strategies, pursue regulatory coop, and promote coop in energy, trnsp, fin. services, technology and other areas.

2005: Trilateral Prosperity Working Group (cabinet level and corp. high-level) formed to develop an integrated NA strategy for 20 industries including steel, autos and e-commerce.

Sept 2006: the NACC issued a 58 page report on recommendations for work. A long sought goal for big business was to get around stiff US standards. Therefore, the NAAC recommended ‘harmonizing regulations around international standards. Thus lowering food and safety standards was to be secured through the guise of creating trilateral uniformity.
The council recommend that rail cars, inspected every 1000 miles in the US, be inspected by Mex. authorities and then sent into the US market, and etc.
To date congress has not held a single hearing on the effort to integrate the economies and policy making machinery of the three countries, The US executive branch lacks the legal authority to integrate the US economy and political system with those of Mex and Can. In June 2007, Bus persuaded some members of congress to slip a special provision into Section 413 of the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Act. stating that “congress…should accelerate the implementation of the SPP to generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mex which will lead to reduced migration.

The Senate rejected the bill. Nonetheless, the SPP continues to be implemented and expanded, out of sight of the US congress and the Am. people.

Since NAFTA the US has signed similar agreements with several other nations. In the first years of the 21st century the US trade deficit has soared to a cumulative total of $4.5T, the largest, fastest unilateral transfer of wealth from one nation to others in the history of the world.

From Jerome Corsi’s book, “The Late Great USA” : (Gist) In 2005 the D/Commerce said “ The SPP announced last March by …. unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North Am. for the 21st century.”

From www.spp.gov: “The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.”

According to Corsi from reviewing 1000’s of pages of FOIA material “It is clear that the SPP is creating new regional infrastructure that includes Mex and can and is agressively rewriting US administrative law, all without congressional oversight or public disclosure.”

He notes that there are 13 working groups with the US government, The security folks report through the NSC and HSC. Ten working groups report to the DOC. It appears the DOS is the cabinet-level coordinator chosen to coord directly with the HSC/NSC. These groups come from the DOS, DOC, HSC, DOT, USDA, USDOT, DOE, HHS, and the USTR.
“The Bush admin has attempted to get a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico as we have with 21 other countries. This agreement would allow Mexican workers to qualify for SS after working six quarters (eighteen months) of employment in the US. A US worker typically needs forty calendar quarters (120 months) to receive US SS benefits.” The GAO estimates 78M the first year growing to 650B by 2050.”

Three Presidential administrations have pursued strategies consistent with precipitating a NAU.
While the NAU is being run through an Executive Order, Pastor has led the intellectual fight for the creation of the NAU and the adoption of the amero as the standard currency. We see the results in the border shooting incidents relating to Ramos and Compean and in another incident involving Deputy Hernandez. We see the Southern border being virtually electronically eliminated with the intent of moving the security perimeter to the lower Mexican borders with free movement of people within the tripartite. Sometimes the legal government tends to arrest them but not too often. We are subject to WTO trade law that supercedes the US Supreme Court. I recently cited a case where the USDA gave subsidies to cotton growers while Brazil and the WTO has brought a $4B suit against the US (taxpayers) for subsidizing cotton growers. Don’t know where that case is as the WTO tribunal operates in secrecy. If we paid the $4B I’m fumed bigtime. Knowing also, that the US taxpayer nor any other entity can take the case to US courts.
The State legislatures of Oregon, Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Washington have introduced bills opposing the NAU and NAFTA It’s clear the plan is to integrate the NAU into the US GOV in much the same way the EU was integrated in Europe. Incrementally, over time, one small slice at a time. At some point the NAU tentacles will be so embedded into every aspect of public, private and government that people will just concede our sovereignty, our Constitution and our democratic principles and go with it.

Womanmarine, that’s my perception as to how we are serving two governments – one legal and one not. Obama seems on board for the open borders/amnesty effort thus one could assume he will continue to run the NAU through an EO. I’d like to know the taxpayer cost in supporting a two-government operation. .

Otherwise, we have the government/NAU we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 18, 2009 7:11 PM
Comment #273791

Dawn,

Obama himself isn’t making hourly comparisons between himself and Lincoln, every president in the last 100 years has invoked the presidents that have come before him.

Clinton, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Reagan, Carter, etc etc. have all invoked Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt(s) to some degree on another, in speeches, policy, reflection, ideals, stories.

It’s the media who’s 99% responsible, I think, for this “Obama = Lincoln” theme going on, though Obama isn’t downplaying it, there’s not much he can do to do that, what’s he gonna say “These people paid for a rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial, I won’t go though.”

Obama isn’t a champion of Afro-American rights, or whatever else the media claim him to be, he,. from all accounts is what you see is what you get. I do believe he has the George Soros mindset, and I HATE HATE HATE George Soros.

The man is a perfect example of how government shouldn’t intervene in business and no monitoring of practices. If we had a perfect George Soros world, all our industries, from ceramic plate making, to toys, to creative writing workshops would be incorporated and outsourced to wherever was “best for business” which at the moment would be India and China.

In addition, to throw fuel onto the fire of anti-Sorosism, the best outcome would be an internal weakening of China, some war or outbreak in India, the U.S. annexes Mexico, pulls an Iraq there (but highly successful), and America becomes a constitutional democratic military powerhouse with a citizen controlled representative government, the executive part of which is headed by the most intellectual people in the world.

Posted by: Jon at January 18, 2009 7:19 PM
Comment #273797

I doubt Obama is being arrogant for taking a train ride. He can take any form of transportation he wants. In fact I hope he rides the train more and leaves Air Force One on the ground. It’ll be a whole heap cheaper.
Show me a President that hasn’t changed his mind after being elected. It just depends on how he changes his mind. Sometimes it’s for the good. Sometimes it’s for the bad. I don’t really read anything into Obama doing it. He most likely has some information now he didn’t have before the election.
I didn’t support Obama but I sure don’t wish the man any ill. I personally hope he can get this country back on the right course and solve some of the problems facing this country. But he’s gonna be fighting the status quo and a do nothing Congress to do it.
If he can just start solving some of the major problems this country faces I’ll call his administration a success.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 18, 2009 9:07 PM
Comment #273798
Judging from the extravagant spectacle about to unfold one could actually believe that the financial crisis we read about is just a mirage.

It is a mirage, Jim M.
And the closer we get to this mirage the less we will see of this “financial crisis”. Are people losing their business, or just not getting a loan? How much has the stock market dropped in Percent compared to the percentage of drop in ‘29? Not so much, eh?


In August of 1929 the stockmarket was at 380.33. July, 5 1932 the stock market was at 41.63. That’s a loss of 89%, if my math is right. 380-41=339/380=.89 or 89%

Roosevelt (D) gets elected in 1932.

In September of 2008 the stockmarket was at 10,831. October, 20 of 2008 the stock market was at 7552. That’s a loss of 30%.

You math genius’s are probably looking at it like this:


In August of 1929 the stockmarket was at 380.33. July, 5 1932 the stock market was at 41.63. That’s a loss of 89%, if my math is right. 380-41=339/380=.89, or 89%

Roosevelt (D) gets elected in 1932.

In September of 2008 the stockmarket was at 10,831. October, 20 of 2008 the stock market was at 7552. That’s a loss of 30%.

If my math is right, that is, that is! :)


Now, all you history buffs are saying:

In August of 1929 the stockmarket was at 380.33. July, 5 1932 the stock market was at 41.63.

Roosevelt (D) gets elected in 1932.

In September of 2008 the stockmarket was at 10,831. October, 20 of 2008 the stock market was at 7552.

“Whoa! ‘29 to ‘32 isn’t comparable to just one month in 2008! There’s a diference of 4 years! It doesn’t compare! It doesn’t relate!”


So, the math guys point out that between August and November of 1929, the stock market dropped 47%.

Much more than the current 30% in 2008. Much more considering the size of the economy. Remember, we are talking percentages.

I think the math guys and the history buffs need to do some more research to see if the 2008-? timeline will follow the same 1929-1933 timeline. I don’t think it will, because in 1929 there was another 4 years to go before the next election. I think the Democratics timed it a little better this time. They did it all in one year instead of having to drag it through a 4 year term. Perhaps the media made that posible, You know, with the tv.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 18, 2009 9:48 PM
Comment #273801
It’s clear the plan is to integrate the NAU into the US GOV in much the same way the EU was integrated in Europe.

Just as it’s clear that the US government was behind 9/11, that the moon landings were faked, that sticking needles in your hands will help your back, that there’s a natural way to cure cancer that the medical community doesn’t want you to know about, and that flouride is a communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

As long as you have no concern about reality, it’s crystal clear.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 18, 2009 11:14 PM
Comment #273802

It’s about time, LawnBoy!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 18, 2009 11:21 PM
Comment #273803

An antagonist, yes.

A prophet? NO.

Because a prophet would look at history and make a decision. A prophet wouldn’t be guided by current events.

Our elected officials have every year to correct our faults, but they don’t.

They beat up people who stand in their way and still they do not solve problems.

It’s time for us to think about what government should not do, instead of thinking what it should do.

Think about that before you start throwing stones. The only area you have is the area you can reach with your stone.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 18, 2009 11:46 PM
Comment #273810

WW,

I think the math guys and the history buffs were thinking the thirty percent sent us into a recession, and that current trends would have us in a depression several months down the road. The solution is to catch the recession before it becomes full-blown.

In other words…if you don’t think we are in serious circumstances in our economy, you are living in the same world-of-make-believe as Roy.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2009 2:42 AM
Comment #273814

I know where America is still segregated; I live there. It is a little town in Southern Illinois called Cairo. Just drive through and see what you think. Someone needs to fix it…

Posted by: Keith H. Holland at January 19, 2009 5:15 AM
Comment #273823

In looking over some websites one could conclude that the push for a NAU is waning. From a couple of related excerpts: (Ron) Paul says, however, the real issue raised by the superhighway plan and the SPP is national sovereignty.
“Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress,” says Paul. “Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.”
The ultimate goal, he says, is not simply a superhighway “but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.”
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union.

What does Pastor propose? “The alternative approach needs to start with a vision of a North American Community and some institutions—quite different from Europe’s - designed to pursue a bold agenda that includes a customs union, a North American commission, a North American investment fund, and a common team of customs and border guards to man (sic) the borders and the continental perimeter. To move toward these goals, the next president should designate a national adviser for North American affairs, who would chair a cabinet-level committee to formulate a comprehensive plan and to help the president negotiate the difficult tradeoffs between special interests and national and continental interests. Instead of refighting the NAFTA debate, this comprehensive approach would lay the foundation for a new North America.”
He adds, “The three leaders should institutionalize summit meetings at least annually, and they should establish a North American commission composed of independent and distinguished leaders from academia, civil society, business, labor, and agriculture and with an independent research capacity. The commission should offer continental proposals to the three leaders. The leaders would continue to be staffed by their respective governments, but they would respond to a continental, rather than a dual-bilateral, agenda. The commission should develop a North American plan for transportation and infrastructure and plans on labor, agriculture, the environment, energy, immigration, drug trafficking, and borders.”

From a 2008 speech by Can. Amb. Michael Wilson: We need to “minimize trade barriers between our countries,” said Wilson. We need “to continually position ourselves better — position North America better — to compete with Asia and Europe.” And we must do this “without falling into the protectionist trap.”
As to the economic downfalls of globalization and integration, such as the manufacturing exodus from Canada, the United States and, increasingly, Mexico, we just need to educate our workers better on how to suck it up and move on. When life gives you lemons, as they say…”

While it appears the NAU concept may be stalled at the moment Pastor and company are not likely to give up.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 19, 2009 11:14 AM
Comment #273825
While it appears the NAU concept may be stalled at the moment Pastor and company are not likely to give up.

That’s one interpretation of the evidence. Let’s take a look at this.

What is the evidence? That some government agencies at both the local and federal level within the US and in Mexico and Canada have advocated some changes that would increase trade connections with our neighbors. Also, some independent think tanks have advocated going further and proposed some long-term broader integrations.

From that evidence, we have two different hypotheses.

  • My hypothesis: Government organizations with the responsibility and charter to improve the national economy through improved trade relations with our neighbors/largest trading partners have worked with our neighbors/largest trading partners to find ways to improve trade relations. Independently, isolated think tanks have come up with some interesting long-term ideas.
  • Your hypothesis: There’s a massive conspiracy within the government at all levels to destroy American sovereignty. Democrats and Republicans alike in positions of power are negotiating in secret to dissolve the concept of an independent America, replace our currency, integrate with our neighbors, and trample the rights of ordinary Americans.

Do both of these hypotheses fit the evidence I described? Yes, in fact, they do. Does that mean each should be considered equally likely? Not at all.

There’s a principle called Occam’s razor which can be paraphrased as “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” Which of these is simpler? Well, my hypothesis requires us to believe that government agencies and think tanks are simply acting normally, doing their jobs. Your requires us to assume that there’s a massive conspiracy amongst thousands of people who have successfully kept it quiet, that politicians of nearly every part of the ideological spectrum find out about the plan and agree to it when they become sufficiently powerful, and that thousands of individuals sworn to protect the American people and the American Constitution are secretly trying to subvert it.

Given a choice of people acting normally and a vast unproven conspiracy, it’s clear to me which one is preferable.

Does that mean that the idea of a NAU is disproven? No, it doesn’t. But it’s also impossible to disprove the existence of a tiny teapot in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because we can’t disprove a crazy notion isn’t any reason to hold onto it.

And, in fact, the sheer unfalsifiability of your idea shows how weak it is. In science, one of the primary requirements for an idea to be considered a Theory and not just an idea is that the idea must be falsifiable. This is one of the primary reasons why Evolution is a valid scientific theory and creationism/intelligent design isn’t.

So, is my hypothesis falsifiable? Sure. If two or more official government entities supposedly involved in this conspiracy gave corroborating evidence and explained their role in it, then I’d have to acknowledge there’s something to it. So, if Canada and Kansas both said “yep, it’s true, and here’s what’s going to happen”, then I’d be worried.

Is the reverse true for you? I doubt it. I strongly suspect that if Kansas’s Governor and the Prime Minister of Canada were to give a joint press conference saying that the NAU idea is ridiculous and that you’re wasting your time, that you wouldn’t be convinced. Your reaction would probably be along the lines of “Either they’re not in the conspiracy (and it’s really hidden) or they’re in so deep that of course they are lying about it.”

If I’m right about that, then you’re just sucked into a conspiracy theory. No contrary evidence will dissuade you, and the complete superfluousness of the conspiracy to explain the evidence doesn’t bother you. You’ve left the realm of rational, critical thinking.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 19, 2009 11:45 AM
Comment #273828

Dawn, we need only to look at the past to see that the Obama will not be bringing us together.

“Can he get people to believe in the AMERICAN DREAM and stop looking for handouts?”

He got a few million more votes than his opponent by promising more handouts, so no, his supporters will not stop looking for more of them. In fact, their demand for more of them will be central in the further division of our country.

“What I don’t understand is, why it is alright for him to do that, when it has been ‘political suicide’ for just about anyone else”

Funny how that works, isn’t it.
For the past eight years, us non-leftists have been called unintelligent brainwashed brownshirt facist drones for not taking leftist opinions as facts, and now, those same people are refusing to question the Obama and show up in stadiums to chant his name by the hundreds of thousands.
All who dare question anything Obama, are labeled racists or blind right-wing nut jobs with an axe to grind.
Yes, it is possible to get away with “changing your mind” all the time, when your supporters have such unconditional love for you that they willingly defend, ignore and excuse everything you do and/or say.

“If George Bush had even had a preacher speak before him during his inaugaration? ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKE LOOSE.”

As LB pointed out, he did. But I think I understand where you are coming from.
If we remember back a few years, what was one of the lefts cries of wrong? Evil white Christian preachers telling their people how to vote. They shouldn’t be allowed to mention their support of one candidate over another. Separation of church and State!
We didn’t hear much about that this year did we? Apparently, its only wrong if the preacher holds “right-wing” views. Preaching religion wrong, preaching Obama good.

“Obama thinks he is Lincoln? Anyone else think the man is being a LITTLE cocky?”

I don’t think he believes he is Lincoln. His supporters and the media want him to be seen as Lincoln though, and this image they are creating of him is for a purpose. Without researching, the average American knows only of Lincolns positives and none of his negatives. He brought the country together and freed the slaves! How could you question the Obama for trying to do the same thing?

“is this the way debates will go about Obama?”

Thats how they all went throughout the campaign and that is how they will go throughout his term, or terms.
Nothing he does will be wrong. It will either be “great,” “for the betterment of the country,” “better than Bush would have done,” “not as bad as Bush” or just simply “no big deal.”
Get used to it my dear.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2009 12:04 PM
Comment #273829

Marysdude admonishes me by writing; “Jim M, High horses are to be dimounted from…you should try it.

As expected it didn’t take long for liberals to change their tune from singing to croaking. For years these folks have talked about uncontrolled spending when it was being done by President Bush and Republicans…now, however it’s just fine. No sacrifice needed now that the dems are in control.

I also find it interesting that no one has mentioned the huge “carbon footprint” of this extravaganza. Surely, moving one or two million people to Washington to witness the coronation leaves our planet a little dirtier. While I don’t worry about MMGW because it is just a farce, I know that Marysdude and others have expressed great concern. I would imagine that Algore is busy feverishly planting trees.

We have some self-admitted brilliant folks writing on this blog who possess great scientific and mathematical minds. I wish one or two of them could tell us the tonnage of carbon unnecessarily spewed into the atmosphere.

The latest calculation for the cost of this inaugural affair I have read is about 170 million. How many poor folks could have been fed or treated with medicine with that amount of money? OH…never mind, such a small amount compared to the trillion or so planned on being squandered by Mr. Obama is just so much gum on the bottom of his shoe.

Posted by: Jim M at January 19, 2009 1:07 PM
Comment #273830


Obama will choose John McCain to be his point man for the illegal immigrant/employer amnesty biii.

When a large majority of the people disagree with policies endorced and carried out by both political parties in a two party system, what recourse do the people have? What has happened to democracy?

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2009 1:08 PM
Comment #273831

Remer writes; “It is not up to Obama to save the nation, it is up to Obama to point the way, and up to the rest of us to take that path.”

Oh please…just what in the world is that supposed to mean? Just as the General plans the battle and the peons do the fighting, Obama plans the spending and we do the paying! And…neither the peons or the taxpayers are supposed to complain or offer objections to the failed and deadly plan? I don’t think so Remer.

While the liberal lemmings are chopping holes in the sinking boat, conservatives will be manning the pumps. The nation’s survival depends upon the pumping to endure longer than the chopping.

When the liberal fanatic’s finally stop spending, and if they haven’t sunk the ship, the mending of the holes can begin. The pumping will continue for decades.

Posted by: Jim M at January 19, 2009 1:39 PM
Comment #273835

Jim M-
Bush’s inauguration in 2005 was not much less costly once you added in the costs for security. Were you concerned about its carbon footprint then? Probably not, because it didn’t serve your rhetorical point then.

Calling it a coronation reveals a certain kind of bitterness. When’s the last time you saw somebody inaugurated who enjoyed Obama’s level of support from the get-go? Obama’s done much to earn people’s goodwill, unlike the last few presidents before him, who were glad to leave people pissed off, so long as they got their 50+1% popular vote and electoral college victory.

Calling us lemmings is ironic. Your people ditched fiscal sanity, with no financial emergency to justify the huge stimulus we’re going for right now. Your people justified these decisions a million different ways right up to the point where y’all lost the 2006 election and the majority. Now as your rivals take on the power, only now do you worry about these things.

Democrats are going to be different about these things. We’re not going to hand billions to corporations, no questions asked. We’re not going to bail out those who made bad business decisions without having a hand in preventing future lapses in judgment where appropriate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2009 2:21 PM
Comment #273837

Jim M, Obama proposes a budget, the People’s representatives legislate a budget, the president signs or vetoes the Congress’ budget.

The Constitution is quite clear on this point, that the Congress alone shall have the power of design over taxation and spending allocation. The president, as I said, may point the way, but, it is up to the Congress and their constituents whether or not that way is followed.

Answer your question as to what I meant? Yes! Though I have to say, I think just a bare minimum of civics education was required to derive the meaning of my original words to which you responded.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2009 2:23 PM
Comment #273838

Jim M, we watched as the conservatives doubled the national debt in 8 years with their big government spending and small government taxation.

No, thanks. We have had quite enough of that. Time to pay the price to correct the failed ideology of conservatives. An ideology which proved it was never for small government, and never for low taxes, since they more than doubled taxes on future tax payers who will have to shoulder the near doubling of the national debt, plus interest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2009 2:27 PM
Comment #273839

Stephen D. said: “We’re not going to hand billions to corporations, no questions asked.”

Huh? Your party just did in 2009, 350 billion in TARP funds, no questions or conditions asked. Keep it honest Stephen D., or your apologetic defense of your party will ring no truer than the Republican loyalists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2009 2:31 PM
Comment #273843

David,

Obama isn’t in power yet, so how do you say that he gave money to corporations yet? What he did was get Congress to release the $350 billion so that it could be used after tomorrow.

Perhaps he will be as lax with it as Bush was, but he hasn’t had the chance yet.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 19, 2009 2:46 PM
Comment #273847

NO Lawnboy. As a Senator he VOTED TO allocate the FIRST 350 billion without conditions or accountability.

He assures us NOW that the next 350 Billion will be dished out with far greater accountability and transparency and conditions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2009 3:41 PM
Comment #273848

“When’s the last time you saw somebody inaugurated who enjoyed Obama’s level of support from the get-go?”

Lets not get carried away.

Last I checked BHO got 53% which means 47% are less than supportive of his vision for this country. I wasn’t concerened about the carbon footprint in 2005 or now, but the question was to people of your ilk. Are you concerned?

Posted by: Matt at January 19, 2009 3:44 PM
Comment #273850

Matt,

I believe Stephen was referring to the current favorability rating of over 70%, which likely will end up being the highest initial approval rating in at least 40 years.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 19, 2009 3:51 PM
Comment #273851
NO Lawnboy. As a Senator he VOTED TO allocate the FIRST 350 billion without conditions or accountability.

David,

I was responding to your specific complaints about what the Democratic party has done so far in 2009. His vote as a Senator was in 2008.

He assures us NOW that the next 350 Billion will be dished out with far greater accountability and transparency and conditions.
Yes, he’s saying that he’ll do a better job than his predecessor did. But he’s not in power yet, so he hasn’t distributed any money, with or without preconditions.

Or are you complaining about the Democratic congress releasing money for the Democratic President-elect to allocate (with undetermined preconditions)? In which case, you should be more clear that you don’t consider Obama to be part of the Democratic party.

Please let us know when you’ve figured out what you’re complaining about so that we can respond appropriately.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 19, 2009 3:57 PM
Comment #273852

Matt,
If you do not care about the Carbon Footprint now, I wonder if you believe that America should have continued the same business pactices that we had in the Late 60’s? Dead rivers, PCP, and other chemicals running rampant in our drinking water, the food we eat, and the buildings that we live in today would have most of us dying from cancer and other illnesses. So unless you are willing to live in the middle of a toxic dump than I do believe that you need to worry about your Carbon Footprint. For why I can make the argument that as a Human you do not need to breathe, drink, or eat in order to exist. Try proven that to others when the CO2 level in the air exceeds safe limits.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2009 3:57 PM
Comment #273853

Oh you’re going by media polls. I was going by actual votes cast.

Posted by: Matt at January 19, 2009 4:00 PM
Comment #273854

Well Henry, I’m sure you’re beside yourself having to witness this environmental travesty of an inauguration then. Wonder why the hippies aren’t protesting?

Posted by: Matt at January 19, 2009 4:03 PM
Comment #273855

Daugherty asks me; “Were you concerned about its carbon footprint then? Probably not, because it didn’t serve your rhetorical point then.”

Answer; No, I wasn’t concerned in 2005 as I am not now as I believe the MMGW psuedo-science practiced by liberals is simply nonsense. I was asking where your concern was Daugherty…as well as all the others who express concern so readily when it suits their political purpose.

Daugherty continues; “Obama’s done much to earn people’s goodwill…”

Besides winning the election, what goodwill are you talking about? Your use of the word “earn” implies that he has done something that has produced favorable results. What would that be? Oh wait…he makes some simpleminded folks feel good and gave them a reason to visit Washington rather than to go to work.

Daugherty also mentions; “Your people ditched fiscal sanity…”

Oops…he thinks I am a Republican and not a conservative. Some day I will help him understand the difference.

Remer says in his attempt to educate me; “Jim M, Obama proposes a budget, the People’s representatives legislate a budget, the president signs or vetoes the Congress’ budget.”

Correct on this one unlike his faulty belief that unearned income is the same as earned income which he pontificated on in another post.

Remer writes; “Answer your question as to what I meant? Yes! Though I have to say, I think just a bare minimum of civics education was required to derive the meaning of my original words to which you responded.”

A bare minimum of writing skills would have made your point clear.

Remer writes; “Jim M, we watched as the conservatives doubled the national debt in 8 years with their big government spending and small government taxation.”

As Remer is a man of honesty and integrity I firmly believe he can name the “conservatives” guilty of his charge. This should be interesting as I would certainly have no difficulty naming the liberals involved.


Posted by: Jim M at January 19, 2009 4:06 PM
Comment #273860

Lawnboy wrote: “What is the evidence? That some government agencies at both the local and federal level within the US and in Mexico and Canada have advocated some changes that would increase trade connections with our neighbors. Also, some independent think tanks have advocated going further and proposed some long-term broader integration’s.”

‘Advocated’ is the hinge word. In fact we have some 40M illegals, open borders, un-enforced federal law, border patrol agents in prison, a re-write of many administrative laws, so-called trade agreements that subvert US law, etc. I’m not so much into conspiracy as I am rational thinking. Took about 30 years to convert Europe into the EU. Started with trade agreements and ramped up from there. Where there is smoke you are rightly concerned about fire. It will be interesting to see what Obama does with it. As it stands it will fail if dumped on Congress because of the sovereignty issues. But, Obama may not like supporting such a hot potato (89M google hits on the NAU) through an Executive Order. On the other hand, it could cost him mightly with the business sector. The NAU may already be too big to fail.

Why the secrecy? Kinda like the Cheny and the oil patch gang meeting in the White House. Could have been done through Congressional and public debate. Could have mixed a little protectionism with free trade together to get folks on board. Nope, just turned it over to big biz and let them run with it.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 19, 2009 5:47 PM
Comment #273862
I’m not so much into conspiracy as I am rational thinking.

I think this conversation disproves that notion pretty conclusively.

Took about 30 years to convert Europe into the EU. Started with trade agreements and ramped up from there.

This is called “Argument from final Consequences,” and it’s a logical fallacy: “Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.”

In fact we have some 40M illegals, open borders, un-enforced federal law, border patrol agents in prison, a re-write of many administrative laws, so-called trade agreements that subvert US law, etc.
This is either another example of argument from final consequence, or it’s another fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc: “This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.” Which of the two fallacies it is depends on whether these facts you decry have anything to do with the SPP and other presumed initial actors. I would guess most don’t. Either way, it’s logical fallacy.
89M google hits on the NAU
Ahhh… another logical fallacy, Argument from popularity
Why the secrecy?
I’ll turn this around. Why do you assume there’s something to be secret about? Secrecy is required only if you think there’s something to be hiding. If my hypothesis is correct, then the question goes away. This is an example of the “Unstated Major Premise” logical fallacy, which is discussed on the page I linked to for “Argument from Final Consequences.”

So, within your claim of favoring rational thinking, I found at least four different logical fallacies. If you really care about rational thinking, then please look at the links I give here, and see how you’re fooling yourself into thinking that conspiracy theory is rational.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 19, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #273867

Lawnboy, let’s agree that I want suggest you read up on the NAU if you don’t suggest I read up on how to think.
On secrecy. Government attendees to some of the earlier meetings paid for their own travel/lodging and per diem to lessen the audit trail of their travel. No press releases, etc.
David, I believe it was Weary Willie that gave me this idea. How about putting up a poll/survey somewhere on the column so we can poll vote on contentious issues. On second thought, it probably wouldn’t help in any constructive way and it would take a lot of time to manage.

Ramos and Compean, imprisioned by the shadow government, have been pardoned (early release).
You have to wonder with no public outcry would they have been pardoned?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 19, 2009 7:36 PM
Comment #273873

Roy Ellis
Yes, an opinion poll would be expensive on resources and to be of value, security and accountability would be even more expensive.

Obama, of course, has this polling apparatus on his transition webpage. Here are directions to log in

http://www.article-5.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=143

and post an “Idea” others can vote “yes” or “no” on. You can also vote on the ideas. I have not voted on any or tried to vote twice or anything like that to see if security and accountability are in place. I’m assuming they are.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 19, 2009 8:06 PM
Comment #273874

Matt,
Have you ever thought that the Hippies never objected Commerce or Trade, but the way that some people in the 60’s and 70’s believed that it should be done?

And why I disagree with both sides on the subject, the fact that like at the turn of the last century. So at the turn of this century some businesses will not survive. For given the Opportunity to invest in building a Green Civilized World or returning to the Dark Ages I wonder how many Millionaires made over the last 40 years are willing to give up their Wealth?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2009 8:16 PM
Comment #273878
Lawnboy, let’s agree that I want suggest you read up on the NAU if you don’t suggest I read up on how to think.

Sorry. You said you were interested in rational thinking, so I thought you might be interested in useful resources. I didn’t realize how little faith and credit I should put into your words.

Never mind.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 19, 2009 8:32 PM
Comment #273880

Dawn
Obviously as the white daughter of a rich Republican contributer you do not have a rascist bone in your body. I’ll bet those Black school friends of your would even have been allowed to use the front door had they visited ,even with the nieghbors watching. They didn’t though. Its their own fault. Thats just how they are.

Posted by: bills at January 19, 2009 9:23 PM
Comment #273881

Roy Ellis
On a hopefully more humorous note, Anyone familiar with the four points of logical thinking has an education, but I don’t think they have time for a job.

You’ll have to admit it was interesting to read.

Bills
That wasn’t interesting or funny.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 19, 2009 9:26 PM
Comment #273883

I need to correct my last post. I personalized bills with a capital B. My BAD! His post didn’t merit that distinction even by his own hand.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 19, 2009 9:36 PM
Comment #273885

Watchblog Manager,
bills post should stand and take it’s due criticism. It’s a short educational problem that can be fixed if it’s pointed out in clear, easy to understand, language that’s easily understood by bills.

bills
What did Dawn do to you? Look at her and tell me what she did to you to make you say that?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 19, 2009 10:18 PM
Comment #273888

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes true.

It’s happening more and more often by the left on Watchblog. David, I take issue with your inaccurate description of the ideology that Bush represents. He had an (R) next to his name, but not an ounce of conservative blood in his body. You can say Republican leadership is greatly responsible for where we are today, but you cannot get away with labeling the last 8 years under Bush as an expression or execution of conservative ideology. I won’t waste everyone’s time with lists of how he COMPLETELY abandoned conservative principles, and insodoing, sabotaged the conservative movement almost lethally, but there is a GIGANTIC distinction between the last 8 years of Republican leadership, and conservative ideology.

I respect you enough to know you will concede that one very minor, but oft overlooked, point.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 19, 2009 11:48 PM
Comment #273890
You can say Republican leadership is greatly responsible for where we are today, but you cannot get away with labeling the last 8 years under Bush as an expression or execution of conservative ideology.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 19, 2009 11:48 PM

tnx

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 20, 2009 12:06 AM
Comment #273891
there is a GIGANTIC distinction between the last 8 years of Republican leadership, and conservative ideology.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 19, 2009 11:48 PM Posted by: Weary Willie at January 20, 2009 12:10 AM
Comment #273895

Perhaps this a good time to remember the 2004 election. Afterwards, Bush spent his political capital pursuing that treasured conservative dream, the ultimate realization of conservative principle, the ‘privatization’ of Social Security Insurance. Anyone remember? The idea was to turn Social Security over to the financial sector, which would manage the retirment funds of individuals by investing them in the stock market and other areas.

Ah, memories. If only those fine institutions had been given the opportunity… Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, the strongest proponents of free markets on the face of the earth. Imagine, just imagine what would have happened if conservative ideology had been allowed to fully flower!

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2009 1:12 AM
Comment #273896

Yes phx8! Nip it in the bud! A conservative ideology must not be allowed to flower!

What are you afraid of? This liberal ideology isn’t working very well, is it? Aren’t we all complaining about something?

It’s all about who can complain the loudest, am I correct? It’s the same in your workplace, it’s the same in your city, it’s the same in your children’s schools. Who can complain the loudest?


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 20, 2009 1:28 AM
Comment #273897

Well, Weary Willie, you may be right. The whole conservative attitude of quiet unquestioning obdedience and obeisance to authority never cut it with me.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2009 1:39 AM
Comment #273898

Conservative philosophy is bankrupt, because it was never anything more than a mask for the deep seated racism behind the GOP Southern Strategy.

Yukon Jack & Weary Willie, this may be presumptuous, but I think the political philosophy you are looking for is libertarianism, NOT the so-called conservatism of the Republican Party.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2009 1:43 AM
Comment #273899

I’m not looking for a political philosophy, phx8. And you are trying to link conservatism to the Republican Party.

NOT the so-called conservatism of the Republican Party.
Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2009 01:43 AM

You will be against anything your party will tell you to be against.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 20, 2009 2:02 AM
Comment #273900

Weary Willie,
The Republican Party has been explicit in its identification with conservatism. George Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative.”

Why do you think I follow a party in lockstep? Why do you think I follow a party’s dictates about what I should believe? I am a liberal. That means I am a free thinker. I am not a member of any Mideastern tribal religion. I think for myself. I am totally comfortable with criticizing Democrats, and the same goes for Obama. The conservatives have been in power for quite a while. Please do not pretend that is not the case. Conservatives have made a complete hash of things because their basic beliefs were wrong, which means their resulting actions were wrong; the Republican conservatives richly deserve harsh condemnation. You can twist and turn in hopes the noose will break, but there it is…

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2009 3:02 AM
Comment #273901

WW
Yeah..that was kind of mean. Hipocracy galls me. If you cannot see the effects of racism in this country then you are blind. Dawn,who is quite capable of taking care of herself, more or less called President Obama arrogant,naive, and accused him of comparing himself to Lincoln,which is unfounded. She might as well have called him uppity.
Hipocracy galls me. Like people living on their Social Security Checks who spend their time complainning about how bad the government is. Like conservatives that spend years defending GWB,defending his shredding of the Constitution,his bonehead and dangerious forign policy decisions,his crippling of regulation and enforcement, his politicalization of institutions that were supposed to protect Americans,even his approval to torture human beings and then turn around and say he was not a “real” conservative. He was and is a conservative. He was the first,and I hope last, Southern conservative governor to be elected (some say) president.
And now we get this opportunity to come together as a people and what we get is constant and frankly unAmerican and unjustified bashing of our best hope forward. Fortunatly Americans are not going for it. BHO has record levels of support. He has enough political good will to move forward with some major and needed changes.Audacity is a better term than arrogance and thank God he has that.

Posted by: bills at January 20, 2009 7:01 AM
Comment #273904

Yukon said: “there is a GIGANTIC distinction between the last 8 years of Republican leadership, and conservative ideology. “

But they BOTH failed this country and the world horribly. And yes, the GOP is a self described home of American conservatives and puts forth candidates identified to the public as conservatives, and receives the vast majority of funding from self-identified conservatives, and is endorsed by a very wide range of conservative groups, think tanks, and interest groups.

It is a sham to try to separate Republicans in office today from conservatives in America. They are intertwined.

Failures of oversight, regulation, and prosecution were the bastard children of the conservatives and their influence on Republicans in office. The neo-cons with their big government spending and small government taxes more than doubled the taxes on future tax payers by nearly doubling the national debt. (Add interest).

One can say that there are some “true” conservatives who did not support the idea of spreading freedom and liberty through invasion and occupation. But, that is like saying there some true Democrats (always vote Democrat) who support laissez faire unencumbered free enterprise capitalism. True enough, but their numbers are insignificant - as they have no control over the Democratic Party elected officials any more than “true” conservatives have over the GOP.

The Libertarian Party picked up a number of the so called true conservatives over the last couple years, following Bob Barr’s lead, and the less educated of these followed Ron Paul, who isn’t a conservative as much as he is spokesman for turning the clock back to the first 28 years of the 20th century. Which of course, is both ludicrous logically and impossible politically. Hence the lesser educated/experienced following.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2009 9:42 AM
Comment #273913
David R. Remer wrote: Failures of oversight, regulation, and prosecution were the bastard children of the conservatives and their influence on Republicans in office.
True.

However, the other extreme is just as bad.
There are really not many (if any) benefits from the politicians in the two main political parties.
There are a few diffences, but most are bad, because where BOTH are not similar, BOTH go to opposite and harmful extremes.

For example, Republicans want unfettered capitalism, which led to all sorts of manifestations of unchecked greed. Eventually, enough people get sick of that extreme (such as today), and the IN-PARTY becomes the OUT-PARTY.

On the other hand, Democrats go to the other extreme, by wanting too much regulation, bureaucracy, and cradle-to-grave social programs, welfare and hand-outs, which discourages production and rewards laziness. Eventually, enough people get sick of that extreme too (such as in the 1980s and 1990s), and the IN-PARTY becomes the OUT-PARTY.

So, BOTH extremes are bad, and given time, each will abuse their power, which is why the IN-PARTY always eventually becomes the OUT-PARTY.

To make matters worse, BOTH also pander to voters who have discovered that they can vote themsevles almost anything they want from the treasury (or more accurately, from debt heaped onto future generations). And in the last 20 years, the Democrats and Republicans have flip-flopped. Clinton’s administration reduced deficits while Republicans administrations grew government bloat and federal debt beyond the already nightmarish proportions. However, BOTH parties are fond of pork-barrel, and with rumors of Trillion+ dollar deficits for years to come, it appears there may now be no one in the federal government that can stop the government bloat and debt from exploding. With so much money on the table, more corruption and waste is almost certain to follow.

What we need is something in-between.
We need a balance.
However, it won’t be surprising to see things turn to the other extreme (again), and more deficit spending of proportions unimagined a few years ago.
If the current total federal debt and nation-wide debt are near (if not already) untenable, growing the debt and already-bloated federal government larger, and doubling, tripling, or N-tupling the money-supply may bring about hyperinflation and another depression. Especially since it appears that the next administration and most in Congress appear to believe that we can somehow borrow, money-print, and spend our way to prosperity. Especially when it seems very unlikely that so sufficient bloat, bureaucracy, waste, and unnecessary spending will accompany the planned trillions in spending. There are already rumors of pork-barrel in the new stimulus BILL. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already introduced an immigration bill (S. 9) to be used as his vehicle for a sweeping Illegal Alien Amnesty. Never mind that the amnesty of 1986 more than quadrupled the problem (without internal enforcement and border security) from 3-to-4 Million to 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens. Illegal aliens merely looking for work are not the villains. Politicians the despicably pit Americans citizens and illegal aliens aginast each other for profits and votes (disquised as compassion) are the true villains. Never mind that most Americans are against another shamnesty, and we have 11.1-to-24.6 Million unemployed (7.2%), which is more than the 12.83 Million unemployed in the Great Depression. Never mind that numerous economic conditions today are now worse then ever before, and/or since the Great Depression.

I disagree about Obama being overly arrogant (so far anyway). However, I think Obama is wrong on some issues, and has told a few fibs. And if Obama’s administration lets Harry Reid and some other Democrats push the new exteme and make another amnesty or drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens one of their goals, which most Americans oppose, it will distract from other abuses and much-needed reforms. Selling-out Americans by sending jobs off-shore is bad enough (even rewarding corporations for moving off-shore with tax breaks and subsidies), but importing skilled labor (via abuse of H1B Visa programs), importing cheap labor by the millions, and more unfair trade-deals, when 11.1-to-24.6 Million Americans are unemployed, is going to meet resistance. And both Democrat and Republican politicians are guilty of selling out Americans, because BOTH are FOR-SALE and BOTH want votes and/or profits. Even if such compassion for illegal aliens is genuine, it is misplaced if it brings suffering to Americans due to crime, burdens on schools, hospitals, healthcare systems, prisons (29% of incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), law enforcement, welfare, Medicaid, insurance systems, and voter fraud (an estimated 3% of votes are by illegal aliens).

Hopefully, the next administration won’t go to the other extremes. If they do, we probably can’t afford it. We’re running out of time, and if a number of abuses are not stopped now, and other certain steps are not done soon, another Great Depression is not far fetched. Especially with the largest debt-per-capita (61.9% larger than after World War II; $21,719 in year 1945 in 2008 Dollars versus $35,081 in year 2008, or $77,049 in year 2008 including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, or $220,000 for the $67 Trillion nation-wide debt).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 20, 2009 11:59 AM
Comment #273919

Dawn, BHO, the professor, is a product that is being promoted for profit by the media. All the doubletalk and Oprahspeak is pretty annoying to those who have not joined the cult. Apparently, it is a “glorious day” because of the skin tone of the new POTUS. Unfortunately, the Rev Wright was right, he’s just a politician, and has already made many people into liars while spinning nonsense for his benefit. He can’t control his supporters, and probably can’t control his own administration. There is a burning sack of shit on the White House dooorstep, and he is jumping right onto it.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 20, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment #273922

The only thing i would change in my article is…

If George Bush would have had a preacher speak before FOR him during his inaugaration? ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKE LOOSE.

Posted by: Dawn at January 20, 2009 1:51 PM
Comment #273928

Dawn,

Your edit doesn’t help a bit. Bush (and all Presidents since FDR in 1941) have had pastors involved in the inauguration just as much as Obama did.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 20, 2009 3:41 PM
Comment #273943

“Obama thinks he is Lincoln? Anyone else think the man is being a LITTLE cocky?”

Dawn do you any link’s that actually indicate where Obama has compared himself favorably to Lincoln? I think the fact that both have Illinois in common may have led the media into a comparison but I haven’t seen anything that this media invention was caused by Obama.

How funny! Conservatives are in denial over the past 8 years as if GWB and the repubs/conservative in the Congress are different from the Reagan repub/conservatives. The only difference is the GWB era conservatives got their way more often. It seems this denial violates the conservative principle of “accepting responsibility for one’s actions unless one is incorporated”. Who did the conservatives vote for in 2000 and ‘04? Nader? Gore? Kerry? Not hardly.
I think it is time for “talk radio” conservatives and “true” conservatives,whatever the differences may be, to realize the movement leadership has used your good intentions to mislead you about their real goals. Conservatism sounds good but as we have seen when it is applied to the real world it leads the same place it did in the ’20s. Obama is right it is time to drop the ideology and work together to rebuild the middle class and thereby the country.

There is more to the problem than tax cuts for the wealthy can solve. When you have a consumer economy and shift a substantial amount of wealth to the top 1%, the economy cannot sustain itself, as we are seeing. Until there is much more demand business will not hire no matter how many tax cuts you give them. Don’t get fooled again, guys, by those you repudiate now.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 20, 2009 5:59 PM
Comment #273962


Tax cuts for the wealthy is part of the problem. The consumer economy is the other part. The purpose of a corporate mass consumption economy is to shift wealth up the ladder in exchange for consumer goods which make life convenient. A consistent supply of new and improved keeps the wealth flowing.

Liberals should not be suprised if their politicians use their good faith in much the same way that Republican politicians have used the conservatives good faith.

Posted by: jlw at January 20, 2009 10:06 PM
Comment #273986

Obama seems to be going through the same gyrations as previous Presidents on assuming office. Transparency, limit association with lobbyist, no revolving door etc. We will have to wait either 4 or 8 years to see if he signs a recinding order such as Clinton and others did at the end of their terms. Haven’t heard if Bush recinded his ethics rules as he departed. And what if a member of the administration breaks a rule or two along the way? Will they be fined, horse whipped, subjected to community service? I suggest none of the above. If you are on the inside you gotta like that kind of accountability.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 21, 2009 1:57 PM
Comment #274008

Dawn

More people out there protecting HIM than troops deployed in Afghanistan?

You should probably know that after the election, the Secret Service acknowledged that there have been far more death threats against Obama than against any other president.

If you don’t think that’s a big deal, think about what would happen if a skinhead had assassinated him - can you imagine? I feel quite safe in saying the nationwide chaos would make the Watts riots and the Rodney King riots combined pale in comparison.

The need for ‘overkill’ on his protection is worth every penny - for his assassination would likely mean thousands - yes, thousands - of people killed in racial violence all across America…and not only that, but the lasting hatred and bitterness that would remain for centuries.

Yes, his protection was QUITE justified.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at January 21, 2009 6:03 PM
Comment #274009

Dawn -

Also, when it comes to preachers, I am a Christian but my faith is radically different from Rick Warren, who gave the invocation, and Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction. Frankly, Warren sounded completely INsincere…and I hope he sat at Lowery’s feet and took notes - for as much as I disagree with Lowery’s beliefs, I could feel his sincerity and his goodness.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at January 21, 2009 6:08 PM
Comment #274026

Nope, sorry, I gave you respect you didn’t deserve David. I have railed against the Bush adminsitration since I started blogging here on WB and anyone of David, phx8 and whoever else was up that list that accuses me of being a tired southern racist because I believe the govenment needs to shrink - not grow - is full of malarkey.

Since all you Liberal Obama-WORSHIPPERS can’t do research on your own, and because it’s in the past, you think you can re-label the past and reinvent history, I guess I will give you my personal TOP 3 reasons why Bush didn’t represent my conservative values.

#1 - The Amnesty for Illegal immigrants. (Which - need I remind those of you who can’t remember back that far, and are incapable of doing a google search, was oppsed by an overwhelming majority of Americans) This policy was a disaster and was killed by the conservative movement. Every talk radio host, and every conservative person here on watchblog, RAILED against Bush for trying to shove that down out throats and we were able to kill it. Thank the good lord. Inexcusable pandering.

#2 - Spending. And not just on the cespool that Iraq turned into. Bush spent more on fiscal welfare programs than any president before him. Inexcusable pandering to the leeches of society, and also the single biggest difference between Bush and true conservatism.

#3 - Foreign Trade - NAFTA was Clinton’s failure, and every other foreign trade agreement that Bush signed has done nothing but destroy our ability to compete in the production of anything “Made in the USA” - and continue the same failures of the previous administration.

I could go on and on, and phx8, you can say the conservative movement is bankrupt, but you don’t know your hoo-ha from you elbow if you think that.

A HUGE amount of Americans want smaller government, want welfare annihilated, want deficit spending cleaned up, want tax-cuts to stay in place, don’t believe women get to “choose” whether or not their baby is a viable human, and generally want the government to spend less time in their (my) business and more time protecting our nation and taking care of infrastructure. (Spare me the abortion debate, it’s only a contradiction in that one instance of moral bankruptcy)

David you are dead wrong, and you can’t get away with it. Conservatives have seen through Bush’s fallacial conservatism from the beginning. I have spent countless, irreplacable hours, writing on this very point to the relative handful of people that regularly read watchblog.

Phx8, RASICM may be bankrupt, and hallelujah if it is, but we’ll see how long it is before I get called a racist for daring to object to Obama policy. I’ll give it a year or less until something to that effect is commonplace here on WB.

Also, I love that fact that the people who have spouted the most mean-spirited, hate-filled vitrial about GW Bush, are now stepping lightly up onto the sanctimonius platform and calling it Unamerican to question or speak negatively of Obama. And not just disagreements on policy, as conservatives generally do - I mean - Bush should die, he is an evil man, a murderer, blah blah blah. Laughable utter hypocrisy.

The real problem with the “Conservative” movement is the same problem with the Liberal movement. Obama may be a very intelligent man, with great values, and genuinely good ideas about America, but his decisions, and ALL OF HIS SPEECHES, are written and passed through a wholly-corrupt bought-and-paid-for Democratic filter of agenda correctness that limits his ability to be authentic and truly affect change.

THAT, is the Republican Party’s (hell, our whole country’s) problem right now. The GOP is so corrupt it’s ridiculous, and anyone who would try to ascend to lead the Republican party had better either become corrupt and tow the GOP desired line, or find another day job. That’s the problem with the conservative movement - not the conservative philosophy - the corrupt A-holes that are running the whole she-bang right into the ground and preventing some fresh blood from entering the leadership roles.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 22, 2009 12:26 AM
Comment #274039

Yukon Jake, Nice rant. Actually Clinton signed the NAFTA bill but it was primarily a repub/conservative bill. Look at the votes. It is funny how conservatives want smaller government yet they keep wanting to pass laws that affect individuals yet want to deregulate corporations to allow them to ruin the middle class. When you mention leeches of society are you referring to the drug companies that got the new “no price negotiation” law passed or your fellow Americans? Again this medicaid bill was a repub/conservative plan. Welfare was turned into workfare over a decade ago. The money saved went to corporate America, again is that who you are referring to when you mention leeches or are you describing fellow Americans? And as far as amnesty for illegals please remember it is a time honored conservative tradition that started with the conservative of all conservatives Reagan.
I will have to stand by my previous comment in that your movement leaders have deceived you but that fact doesn’t make the results less conservative. It’s actions that count not rhetoric and that is where the conservative movement faithful have fallen down. They listened to what was said not watched what was done.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2009 10:47 AM
Comment #274049

Yukon Jake said: “David you are dead wrong, and you can’t get away with it. Conservatives have seen through Bush’s fallacial conservatism from the beginning.”

No, it is your comment which is DEAD WRONG, Yukon, for failing to recognize that Bush AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS are responsible for much of what has taken place in the last 8 years.

Talk about myopic revisionist history, you lay the blame of the entire federal government at Bush’s feet, calling him a non conservative, while ignoring the lock step Republicans in Congress. Sorry, your argument is entirely illogical and divorced from the reality of what took place. Using Bush as a scapegoat in an attempt to preserve the notion that conservatives had no role in the ills that befell our nation, is illogical and out of touch with reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2009 11:52 AM
Comment #274053

jlw said: “Tax cuts for the wealthy is part of the problem. The consumer economy is the other part. The purpose of a corporate mass consumption economy is to shift wealth up the ladder in exchange for consumer goods which make life convenient. A consistent supply of new and improved keeps the wealth flowing.”

That is one heckuva simplistic, wrong, and 6th grade explanation of our economy as I have ever heard.

First, convenience is married to complexity. The more conveniences one has, the more complex the dependency one is drawn into to maintain those conveniences, and the more expensive. Thus, unless real wages per capita are consistently rising, the lives of working people simply get more complex and expensive, not convenient.

The purpose of a corporate mass consumption economy is greed, pure and simple, and the higher one is on the wealth ladder, the more power to exercise greed one has. That is why trickle down economics was a COMPLETE and ABJECT failure. This is not hard to understand, jlw, as corporations are driven by shareholder’s demands for every more earnings on their shares of stocks. Without shareholder’s, there is no corporation. It is the role of exec’s at corporations to both insure realistic shareholder earnings and promotion of the health and welfare of their community, their nation, and the nation’s and world’s future, upon which the future of the corporation and shareholder’s earnings depend. That part of Adam Smith Republican’s and a great many conservatives simply don’t get, despite its being quintessential to Adam Smith’s thesis in The Wealth of Nations.

Read your Adam Smith, jlw, he is after all, the writer upon whom most conservatives ultimately rely upon to justify greed, ideology, and corporatism. I have yet however, to meet a Republican or conservative who has ever read The Theory of Moral Sentiment, upon which Adam Smith rested his case made in The Wealth of Nations, and from which the “invisible hand” concept was defined as enlightened self-interest, which, according to Adam Smith, is about as far from individual greed as one can get.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2009 12:08 PM
Comment #274054

d.a.n said: “There are really not many (if any) benefits from the politicians in the two main political parties.
There are a few diffences, but most are bad, because where BOTH are not similar, BOTH go to opposite and harmful extremes.”

Generally, I agree, and have made this argument many times that partisan ideology is doomed to fail, ultimately, because ideology is inflexible, and dogmatic, and doomed to be applied in circumstances and situations for which it was never intended to address.

Democrats belief in deficit spending during non-emergency periods when the economy is doing well in the name of uplifting the poor and middle class lacks the provision to pay down the debt that will accumulate.

Republicans suffer a similar blindness in their belief that cutting taxes perpetually will not bankrupt the nation because it will, under all circumstances, stimulate a growth in government revenues, resulting in the same failure to pay down the very real deficits and debt their ideology will inevitably create over time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #274069

Glen wrote; “The need for ‘overkill’ on his protection is worth every penny - for his assassination would likely mean thousands - yes, thousands - of people killed in racial violence all across America”

While I agree that the protection provided to PO was warranted I truly do not understand why Glen believes in the reaction he describes. Would not all American’s be outraged? Implying racial violence (by blacks I assume) would erupt does a real disservice to our black population.

Against whom would this “racial violence” be directed and why? Did not a majority of both white, hispanic and black American’s vote for PO?

Posted by: Jim M at January 22, 2009 2:04 PM
Comment #274072

”” Actually Clinton signed the NAFTA bill but it was primarily a repub/conservative bill”“” I did and The party of Labor voted right at about 50% Aye in the senate And clinton was in love with it Like a Fella here told many moons ago clinton was up and Down on NAFTA. the Conservative Senator Hollings The South Carolina Democrat Fought tooth and nail Against it.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 22, 2009 2:19 PM
Comment #274087

Dawn I can’t support your Blog You really Have not giving any Objective evidence at all, I watched the man like a hawk and he’s extended his hand to everyone Republican and Independent from almost the get go, so far I’ve seen someone pretty pragmatic and thoughtful. when you find something worthy please by all means use your right of free speech as i will to.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 22, 2009 3:53 PM
Comment #274098

Jim M - Remember the Rodney King riots? Most whites thought the cops were guilty, too - but that didn’t stop the riots, did it? No offense, but I think I’ve a better understanding of race relations than do most of my fellow whites.

David - On the ongoing Republican revision of history. Didn’t we hear back in late November that it was the ‘Obama Recession’ which will surely turn into the ‘Obama Depression’? I think ol’ Rush was the source for that one. And NOW the Republicans are all about ‘fiscal responsibility’ and always have been…as long as one doesn’t look at their congressional voting records for the past eight years….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at January 22, 2009 4:56 PM
Comment #274106

Glenn writes; “No offense, but I think I’ve a better understanding of race relations than do most of my fellow whites.”

No offense taken Glenn and perhaps with your understanding, which I don’t profess to have, you could explain more thoroughly. Thanks!

Posted by: Jim M at January 22, 2009 7:00 PM
Comment #274109

“I did and The party of Labor voted right at about 50% Aye in the senate And clinton was in love with it”

Yes Rodney the dems in the USHOR voted 102 yea and 156 Nay. In the Senate the dems voted 27 Yea and 28 Nay. The repubs in the USHOR voted 132 Yea and 43 Nay while in the Senate they voted 34 Yea and 10 Nay. So to say “Actually Clinton signed the NAFTA bill but it was primarily a repub/conservative bill” is an accurate reflection of the facts. I agree Clinton was very supportive of it however IMHO Clinton, although a dem, was the best fiscally conservative POTUS since the Reagan revolution.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2009 10:38 PM
Comment #274117

Why was President Clinton the fiscally conservative President?
Because he was up against the Gingrich jaugernaut. He was up against a true conservative.

My dad refuses to consider Newt Gingrich’s achievements. My dad says Newt Gingrich is not worth his consideration because he devorced his wife when she had cancer.

I don’t know how true that is or if it’s acurate at all. I think it’s a media concoction that dominated the airwaves while he was being slandered and excomunicated by both the Democratics and the Democratics in congress.

The Republican Revolution balanced the budget, just as they said it would. Sure, there are casualties.

What Marysdude doesn’t realize is: Congress spends the money, Not “the most lovely one” being appointed this time.

George Bush said; It’s when you sit in the seat, you realize the weight of the office. (or something like that)

Now that the Most Elequent One gets to the finish line he starts having trouble saying the words! He needs a do-over, a mulligan!

Heaven forbid a conservative flub the oath of office!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 23, 2009 3:55 AM
Comment #274119

I’m glad the government is under the control of the Democratic’s party leadership. Now the media has no choice but to use a conservative point of view to make it’s product sellable.

Tick tock.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 23, 2009 4:09 AM
Comment #274126

Right you are WW, but have you noticed the way the media has greased the skids for Obama’s admin? I don’t have a dog in the fight but it is so blatantly clear the media is sucking up to Pres. Obama’s administration. So, I suspect it will be awhile before conservative dogma surfaces in the media. But, it will happen.

Posted by: Roy Ellisl at January 23, 2009 8:25 AM
Comment #274127

WW,

What Marysdude doesn’t see is…plenty. Marysdude is just a fat old fart sitting at his computer…but, Marysdude does know that the President presents his budget for Congress to consider, and from that point on it is up to the Congress to modify, amend and conger over it until it is not recognizable for all the pork that’s been added, and it goes, in that form, back to the President for signature or veto. And Marysdude knows that Clinton did a lot for our economy in spite of congressional shenanigans and obstructionist ploys. Gingrich was so busy whining about having to enter Air Force One through the back entrance, he failed to do his job. Please remember that it was a tug of war between the Republicans and Clinton that shut down the government:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-14/transcripts/clinton.html

and fought them all the way to the finish of his terms. Gramm passed because Clinton knew he could not win a veto battle.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2009 9:08 AM
Comment #274129

I don’t know how true that is or if it’s acurate at all. I think it’s a media concoction that dominated the airwaves while he was being slandered and excomunicated by both the Democratics and the Democratics in congress.

Sure it was WW. It always is the media and a conspiracy when it’s your hero that is caught with their pants down.

“Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery. In 1999, he was disgraced again, having been caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

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

“Heaven forbid a conservative flub the oath of office!”

WW it was a conservative that flubbed the oath. Sorry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_flubbed_oath

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2009 9:47 AM
Comment #274141

My bad on the oath, but I don’t see anything in your link, j2t2 where any of the GOP candidates mentioned got up in front of a grand jury and lied about their affairs.

Did I miss it somewhere? Or did prosicuting perjurers just become the fad as of late.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 23, 2009 12:29 PM
Comment #274151

When Republicans apologize for spending seventy million dollars, chasing their collective skirts around the bush for five plus years, investigating more ‘gates’ than I can keep track of, and finally allowing a bitter woman’s illegal recording to guide their proceedings…I’ll apologize for Clinton’s trying to cover his ass on his home front by lying about his sex life.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2009 1:27 PM
Comment #274154

Thanks for admitting he lied, Marysdude. Now, where’s the trial for perjury? Or do we have one standard for one party and another for the other?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 23, 2009 1:40 PM
Comment #274162

WW,

Where’s the apology from the other side? No one in my memory said he did not lie. Most just think that after that many dollars, different investigations and years thrown against you, virtually anyone would lie. Please study this thing from the beginning, analyze the threat that was being investigated, how far astray it went and what a circus it turned into. After all is said and done, it just wore everyone out. There was no impetus left to make those charges stick.

And, quite frankly it has worn me out again…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2009 3:10 PM
Comment #274165

“My bad on the oath, but I don’t see anything in your link, j2t2 where any of the GOP candidates mentioned got up in front of a grand jury and lied about their affairs.”
That is true no republican, such as Gingrich, were called in front of the grand jury by Ken Starr for their affairs, I wonder why then Clinton was singled out by Starr when it appears Gingrich as least was also messing around? I guess this proves your point that Clinton wasn’t a true conservative but what I had said was he was a better conservative than the others. I guess I will stand by that statement.


“Thanks for admitting he lied, Marysdude. Now, where’s the trial for perjury? Or do we have one standard for one party and another for the other?”

WW take a deep breath and go back and read what Newt was doing as he was spearheading the impeachment against Clinton. Seems there is a double standard as Newt wasn’t impeached.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2009 3:19 PM
Comment #274173

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or … reckless” disregard of House rules.[29] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. However, the full panel refused to reach a conclusion about whether Gingrich had violated federal tax law and instead decided to leave that finding up to the IRS.[30] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the “Renewing American Civilization” courses under investigation for possible tax violations.

Sounds like he was covering his ass too!
His opponents just accused him of lying. I suppose it’s different if you’re accused of something and then later found out not to be true. Maybe if he actually did lie he could get away with it, or is that reserved for the other political party?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 23, 2009 4:27 PM
Comment #274206

j2t2 writes; “Seems there is a double standard as Newt wasn’t impeached.”

He didn’t lie under oath!

Posted by: Jim M at January 23, 2009 8:11 PM
Comment #274212

“He didn’t lie under oath!”

Right Jim M. but I guess the question is why wasn’t Ken Starr putting him in front of the grand jury for the same offense Starr went after Clinton on? I guess your point is Clinton wasn’t a better conservatives than his predecessors or successor which is what started this whole side issue. But as far as balancing the budget and curtailing the size of the federal government he sure was, which was my point to begin with.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2009 9:06 PM
Comment #274221

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

The momentum of the Republican Revolution stalled in late 1995 and early 1996 as a result of a budget fight between Congressional Republicans and President Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich and the new Republican majority wanted deep cuts to government spending including Medicare, which Clinton flatly rejected. Without enough votes to override President Clinton’s veto, Gingrich led the Republicans not to submit a revised budget, allowing the previously approved appropriations to expire on schedule, and causing parts of the Federal government to shut down for lack of funds.


Gingrich was lampooned in the media as a petulant figure with an inflated self-image, and at least one editorial cartoon depicted him as having thrown a temper tantrum.[23] Democratic leaders took the opportunity to attack Gingrich’s motives for the budget standoff

Again, the Democratics and the media. Quite a pair, working together to rid themselves of people who disagree with them.

j2t2
Ken Starr went after Clinton concerning the Whitewater land deal and the Vincent Foster suicide. It’s much like going after Cheney/Bush for supposedly outing a “spy” and coming up with a perjury charge.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 23, 2009 11:43 PM
Comment #274222

“Ken Starr went after Clinton concerning the Whitewater land deal and the Vincent Foster suicide.”

Yes he did but when that proved unsuccessful did Starr stop the waste of tax payer dollars and the investigation or did he continue to pursue anything and everything he could till he ended up with Clinton doing the same thing Gingrich did? Why then did he not continue the witch hunt and pursue Gingrich if the offense was so terrible that it needed to be brought before a grand jury?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Comment #274229

Something you all might want to know…Starr had only to read the Arkansas State Police Report on White Water. He did not have to reach into the kitchen sink to figure out the Clintons were losers on that deal, not finaglers. There had already been quite an extensive investigation completed, and the Clintons exonerated before Starr was even assigned. That is one reason Clinton went along with the assignment of the Special Prosecutor (he did not have to). He knew there was only fluff for an investigation. What he did not understand was the extent of the hate those pushing the investigation actually had for him. That is why that single little investigation lasted so long and extended in to so many corners, and cost so much money.

There has still been no apology for that fanciful, costly bit of nonsense.

I’m pretty sure it all went forward because Clinton seemed to be getting more sex than his Republican enemies…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2009 5:43 AM
Comment #274247

””“I agree Clinton was very supportive of it however IMHO Clinton, although a dem, was the best fiscally conservative POTUS since the Reagan revolution.”“” Yes he did A good Job Overall I agree, Now Correct me if I’m wrong It was His Team Of folks Like Kantor and others that Drafted and Framed the Trade Agreements?.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 24, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment #274272

Five Former U.S. Presidents Support NAFTA

In an unprecedented show of bipartisan support, five former U.S. presidents signed a Nov. 16 letter to Congress emphasizing NAFTA’s importance. It began: “During the last 25 years, the five of us often had occasion to differ with each other. On the issue of the North
Page 2 of 15
American Free Trade Agreement, however, we are united in our belief that its approval is crucial to our nation. …
“NAFTA represents a turning point for America. If you vote against it, the role of the United States as a world leader will be severely damaged, and the prosperity of the United States and the international economy will be endangered.”

Washington proposes a “North American Agreement”

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 24, 2009 3:41 PM
Comment #274279

Jim M. you wrote that the people can have an effect on government and used immigration as an example. Recall that Regan gave amnesty in round one of the immigration issue. We have since had rounds two and three which the government wrestled the people to a tie I would say. Now, round four is coming up with a Dem WH and Congress. Big biz really wants this NAFTA/SPP/NAU thing and I think WW noted that four Presidents have argued that if we don’t get NAFTAtized we are economically doomed. Obama has all this political capital built up to throw at amnesty. I’m suggesting that because the public made an extraordinary number of phone calls that not the end of the game. Has little to do with Dems or Reps or libs or conservs. It’s what big business wants.

WW, a good website on NAFTA. Lays out the government side, not necessary truthful. I like to find the small unreported issues like Salinas bailing out of Mex. with millions of NAFTA dollars in tow.

True, voters can make a difference when they choose to participate. But, it is too much to expect working people to stay involved and current in trying to watch these guys 24/7. Too much to ask. It ain’t your grandfather’s politics anymore. We need a 3rd party with a different political attitude whose job includes monitoring the politico’s to keep them straight or else. If a perceived problem arises the alarm goes out to the membership. Kinda like the Minutemen concept.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 24, 2009 8:41 PM
Comment #274287

“Now Correct me if I’m wrong It was His Team Of folks Like Kantor and others that Drafted and Framed the Trade Agreements?.”

According to History.com this was a Reagan conservative initiated scheme. Hence the comment ” however IMHO Clinton, although a dem, was the best fiscally conservative POTUS since the Reagan revolution.” Kantor did his share as a trade negotiator under Clinton but that just seems to prove my point that Clinton was a better conservative than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Of course they are all talk radio conservatives IMHO and I’m sure the JBS would not consider them to be true conservatives but who knows what is true and what is talk radio.
In addition in WW’s comment the link seems to support the History.com version of the origins of NAFTA.

From history.com “The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton’s first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years—though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative.”
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5584

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2009 12:59 AM
Comment #274291

Great post j2t2
Did the United States experience a “giant sucking sound”?
Was Ross Perot the crackpot, paranoid, scitzoid the media portrayed him to be?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 25, 2009 4:45 AM
Comment #274292

It’s too damn bad he wasn’t a Democratic.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 25, 2009 4:47 AM
Comment #274303

I think you could take the concept of NAFTA back to the Carter era when Robert Pastor, father of the NAU, had his ear. He convinced Jimmy to fork over the Canal. From a webb article: He was National Security Advisor for Latin America (1977-81) and has been a consultant to the Departments of State and Defense. From 1985 until arriving at AU, Dr. Pastor was Goodrich C. White Professor of Political Science at Emory University, and he was a Fellow and Founding Director of the Carter Center’s Latin American and Caribbean Program and the Democracy and China Election Projects. At The Carter Center, he founded and served as the Executive Secretary of the Council of Freely-Elected Heads of Government, a group of 32 leaders of the Americas, chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. This Council mediated elections in more than thirty countries around the world.
He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University and an M.P.A. from the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author or editor of sixteen books, including most recently, Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New (2001); Exiting the Whirlpool: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Latin America and the Caribbean (2001); and A Century’s Journey: How the Great Powers Shape the World (1999). Dr. Pastor was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Malaysia, a Fulbright Professor in Mexico, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard University.
Dr. Pastor has been a foreign policy advisor to each of the Democratic Presidential Candidates since 1976 and was Chair of the Working Group on North America for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. President Bill Clinton nominated him to be Ambassador to Panama, and he served as the Senior Advisor to the Carter-Nunn-Powell Mission to restore constitutional government in Haiti in 1994. He is the Vice Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, and he is also Executive Director of the Commission on Federal Election Reform.

From a webb article:
Dr. Pastor’s early professional career involved a working association with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Here he participated on the Ad Hoc Working Group on Latin America, which produced a 1977 report, “The Southern Connection: Recommendations for a New Approach to Inter-American Relations,” arguing for the U.S. to abandon our anti-communist allies in Latin America in favor of supporting “ideological pluralism,” a code word for the revolutionary socialist forces taking hold in Latin America, including the communist Sandanistas and other revolutionary terrorist groups that were developing in countries such as El Salvador. Author David Horowitz’s discoverTheNetworks.org identifies the IPS as “America’s oldest leftwing think tank” that “has long supported Communist and Anti-American causes around the world,” with a place for KGB agents from the Soviet embassy in Washington “to convene and strategize.”
From February 1975 to January 1977, Dr. Pastor was executive director of the Linowitz Commission on U.S./Latin American Relations. The Linowitz Commission supported President Carter’s decision to negotiate a treaty to turn over the Panama Canal to Panama. Pastor left the Linowitz Commission to join become director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs in the National Security Council in the Carter White House. There Pastor served as Carter’s “point man” in getting the Senate to narrowly vote for the Carter-Torrijos Treaty on April 18, 1978, despite staunch objections from conservative politicians including Ronald Reagan.
In December 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated Pastor to be U.S. ambassador to Panama. Pastor’s nomination was approved by a 16-3 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his confirmation looked virtually certain. The nomination failed, however, and was withdrawn by the administration in February 1995, after then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) swore to prevent a Senate vote on Pastor’s nomination. Helms, who had vehemently opposed the turn-over of the Panama Canal, placed much of the blame squarely on Pastor, declaring when he opposed Pastor’s nomination that Pastor “presided over one of the most disastrous and humiliating periods in the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America.” Helms also claimed that Pastor bore responsibility for what Helms saw as “a Carter administration cover-up of alleged involvement by Nicaragua’s Sandinista government in arms shipments to leftist rebels in El Salvador.”
Dr. Pastor has also co-authored a 1989 book with his long-time friend, Jorge G. Castañeda, who began his career as a member of the Mexican Communist Party. Castañeda, a life-long admirer of the radical left, published in 1998 an admiring biography of the revolutionary “hero” Che Guevara. Castañeda, like Pastor, has sought to work in government positions to implement his theories, not satisfied to be a political scientist who writes books and teaches at universities. Castañeda too has mixed his career as a government employee by alternating time spent as an author of more than a dozen books and a university professor at various times on the faculties of the University of California at Berkeley, Princeton University, and the New York University.
Castañeda was an aggressively pro-illegal immigration foreign minister when he accompanied President Vincente Fox in the U.S. in 2001. Those were the days when Vincente Fox was declaring himself to be the president of 100 million Mexicans at home and 23 million Mexicans in the United States. Castañeda also attended with President Fox on a three-day state visit to pre-9/11 Washington. There in a joint statement on Sept. 6, 2001, the two leaders announced a bilateral “Partnership for Prosperity,” which after 9/11 evolved into the trilateral summit statement of a “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” announced in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. Castañeda is probably best remembered for telling in 2001 a group of mostly Latino union workers that Mexico was going to press for “the whole enchilada,” intending to legalize all illegal Mexicans aliens in the U.S.
In his pressing enthusiasm for realizing the NAU, Robert Pastor argued in a 2004 article in CFR’s Foreign Affairs, entitled “North America’s Second Decade,” that the United States would benefit by giving up U.S. national Sovereignty. “Countries are benefited,” he wrote, “when they changed these [national sovereignty] policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete.”
Characteristically, Dr. Pastor has seen the U.S. as a North American bully that needs to be restrained, for the good of the region and possibly even for the good of the world. On Oct. 21, 2003, he testified to the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs along these lines:
A new approach to the Americas needs to begin with some humility and a willingness to bridge the post-Iraq gap. The United States needs to realize that its power has limits and obligations. U.S. power can compel other governments to take our agenda seriously, but if we brandish it or ignore other views, we unintentionally invite resistance or simply no cooperation. To achieve our goals in the region (and elsewhere), we need to listen more and lecture less.
In 2004, Dr. Pastor declared his support for the presidential campaign of John Kerry. Dr. Pastor’s 19-page curriculum vitae (c.v.) on the website of American University where he is currently a faculty member documents that Dr. Pastor has served as an adviser to every Democratic Party presidential candidate for three decades, since he first supported Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Dr. Pastor was the co-chair of the May 2005 CFR report, “Building a North American Community,” argued that the Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada on March 23, 2005 should become by 2010 a “North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.” According to his published c.v., Dr. Pastor was the “principal editor” of this CFR report as well as the vice chair of the task force that produced it.
The May 2005 CFR task force report made clear that the borders between the U.S. and Mexico and between the U.S. and Canada would be erased, with the only border to be protected to be around North America. As the report stated on page 3, the boundaries of the North American Union “will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.” The “outer security perimeter” referred specifically to the border around Canada, the U.S., and Mexico — such that the borders between these countries would be virtually erased. Dr. Pastor left no doubt about his view of U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada in his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through toll booths.
Note that Dr. Pastor’s reference was to “North Americans,” a term he meant to replace the current designations of “Mexicans,” “Americans,” and “Canadians,” much as he also was arguing for the NAU to replace the USA.
Dr. Pastor himself proclaims that the May 2005 CFR task force report on which he was vice chair and principal editor was a “blueprint” for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP.gov). In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate, Dr. Pastor informed the Foreign Relations Committee of this link:
Entitled “Building a North American Community,” the report offered a blueprint of the goals that the three countries of North America should pursue and the steps needed to achieve these goals.
The CFR report, under Robert Pastor’s direction, recommended expanding the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into a North American military command, creating a North American Development Fund to help pay for Mexico’s economic development, establishing a North American Union Court to resolve disputes, establishing a North American Advisory Council to serve as the NAU executive branch, and creating a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group to act as NAU lawmaker. These recommendations derive directly from Robert Pastor’s many published books and papers, as well as his extensive professional testimony to Congress and groups such as the Tri-Lateral Commission. His most comprehensive statement of his views on creating the NAU by transforming NAFTA into a political entity were expressed in his 2001 book, “Toward a North American Community”, where he also advocated the creation of a common NAU currency, the Amero, as first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert Grubel.
Critics who argue that the NAU is a “conspiracy theory” are well advised to take a hard look at Robert Pastor. With U.S. policy toward Latin America, Dr. Pastor first approached the issue in writing (for the radical IPS, as we have noted), next as a university professor, and finally as a government official. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Robert Pastor most likely would have emerged with a government position from which he could have pursued his NAU agenda. Given the re-election of George Bush, Dr. Pastor has surfaced within the CFR, an influential “think-tank” NGO whose history of impacting U.S. policy would suggest the CFR impact on SPP.gov could easily be more than academic.

We seem to have come up with some real winners over the last few decades, Rubin, Greenspan, Phil Gramm, Pastor and the like. Well, here we sit,
“busted flat in Baton Rouge” as the song goes. Government trying to meet globalization goals by breaking the bak of the middle class worker, alst the while pumping billions into banks, auto industry and anybody else perceived as too big to fail. I just don’t get it. If the Am. worker has to get down to a wage of $6/hr to reach world parity, why would the government want to pump up banks and car makers. Do they not have to come down some as well. Shouldn’t the fabric be stretched evenly? Will CEO’s and the top 10% continue to see increased wealth while the middle class workers take the full hit. I just don’t understand it. And I sure don’t believe it will work. If you make $6/hr and it cost $400 to see a doctor I can’t figure out the mechanics of that. Maybe the wealthy 10% is large enough to support such a system but I don’t buy it.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 25, 2009 12:34 PM
Comment #274308

Kantor did his share as a trade negotiator under Clinton but that just seems to prove my point that Clinton was a better conservative than Reagan, 8.5 Million good Jobs lost and counting!! Shame on All of them .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 25, 2009 2:43 PM
Comment #274311

“8.5 Million good Jobs lost and counting!! Shame on All of them . “

Couldn’t agree more Rodney. This sell out of our nation by the corporations of this country is shameful. So are the politicians that support and defend these corporations as if it benefits the people of this country. And shame on we the people for continuing to vote these people into office and allowing them to act in the interest of the multinational corporations and not the American people.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2009 3:08 PM
Comment #274339

I thought the reason for NAFTA was that the European Union was about to become reality, and our idiots thought their idiots would beat out the West for world bucks…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 26, 2009 6:51 AM
Comment #274344

I think you are right Marysdude. But, in Europe they had openness and debate in their struggle to EUthanize. Governments considered the worker in the equation. In this country it was carried out in secret, as I’ve ranted on frequently, with little to no Congressional debate, no public debate. Congress abrogated their oversight by giving the Exec. ‘fast track’ trade authority. But, you’re right. In their rush to greed corporations around the world wanted to stake out the best beach front property and best government they could buy. In doing so we are all ‘busted flat in Baton Rouge’. What might have been the outcome if globalization and the NAU had been debated? Or, a go-slow policy taken on outsourcing and relocating businesses overseas.
What if workers were considered along with the greed factor? Now the fools are throwing around trillions of dollars of money we don’t have to do what? Can’t be sure? And, remember, a trillion seconds takes us back to 30,000 years BC.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 26, 2009 10:33 AM
Comment #274356

> And, remember, a trillion seconds takes us back to 30,000 years BC.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 26, 2009 10:33 AM

Roy,

Ouch, that hurt…oh, well, what’s a penny or two between friends???

Posted by: Marysdude at January 26, 2009 2:31 PM
Comment #274366

Right again Marysdude! People are willing to ‘watch the action’ and perhaps hope sanity will prevail regarding the bailouts. Why was there more emotion with the illegals issue than in whizzing away some trillions of dollars we don’t have? No phone calls? No jammed faxes? I suppose it’s because we had 30 years to figure out the immigration issue and have only a week or two to figure out the bailout scenario. Tonight on Lou Dobb’s we will get an insiders view of what caused a Nevada bank to go down with mortgage lending. Let’s meet here tomorrow same time and take a poll to see if we want that bank bailed out. See you at 5:04pm tomorrow.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 26, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #274408

Roy Said, And Thank You ROY! In this country it was carried out in secret, as I’ve ranted on frequently, with little to no Congressional debate, no public debate. Congress abrogated their oversight by giving the “”“”“”Exec. ‘fast track’ trade authority. “”“”“”But, you’re right. In their rush to greed corporations around the world wanted to stake out the best beach front property and best government they could buy. In doing so we are all ‘busted flat in Baton Rouge’. What might have been the outcome if globalization and the NAU had been debated? Or, a go-slow policy taken on outsourcing and relocating businesses overseas.
What if workers were considered along with the greed factor?”“” Right On That’s what i was talking About No Real Debate By Congress Other than Fritz and a Few It was a Whitewash.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 27, 2009 12:05 PM
Comment #274418

Well, globalization and the NAU here to stay. As was said in a recent post, the last five admin’s supported it. Trillions have been spent putting it in place. People could see what was happenening even though there was no debate, no reporting from Congress or the Exec. The government realized the only way they could make it happen was behind the scene using the Executive to drive it to fruition. I see no way it could be turned around. Turning toward protectionist policies now would turn the entire world against us. However, I can see no way we can manufacture competitively until our wage scale is on parity with the world’s cheapest labor. Now, I don’t see businesses rushing to drop their prices to support the lowering of middleclass workers wages. Or doctors, lawyers, government or any entity. Seems they want to drop the whole of globalization on the back of the middle class. Maybe the developing world can become upwardly mobile more rapidly than one might think. Yet, I can’t see business letting that happen. Anyway, we are between a rock and hard spot from my perspective. People have lost much of the retirement funds, stock funds, home equity and home value yet, they don’t seem to complain or complain loudly. What will the wealthy and corporate do when the middle class can’t afford to purchase? Left as is, young people would have to deal with globalization much like our parents did yers ago. They left the farm and went to Detroit or New York. Young people will have to go to China or the ‘next world’s cheapest labor market’ hot spot to find good paying jobs. If prices don’t fall along with our wages our children will become immigrants much like Brazilian’s on temp visas to Japan or African’s immigrating to Europe.
If there is a big master plan for all this I wish somebody would clue me in.
Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 27, 2009 2:35 PM
Comment #274480
Well, globalization and the NAU here to stay.

The first one, yes.

The second one’s a myth.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 28, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment #274542

Lawnboy, I’ve noticed there are a half dozen or so folks willing to advocate for a fair trade policy as opposed to free trade. Enough of them to cause free traders to threaten to take the US to WTO court if the US starts acting protectionist. Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) said last evening that he would like to see NAFTA repealed and China removed from the most favored trading status. Of course, I threw my hat in the ring with fair traders. I can point to no success in this so-called globalized economy. All you get from the free traders is ‘wait a while longer, exports will go through the roof’, etc. Now, for the major Corp’s who relocated to the land of cheap labor, they are coming up roses.
I see it as a survival issue for this country. I believe when we are daid broke the government will adopt a fair trade policy.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 29, 2009 5:05 PM
Post a comment