Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
The Fire Next Time

The Fire Next Time

By James Baldwin

more items

 
Report

Why Do Conservatives Hate America?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 12, 2009
White House / Pete Souza

Conservatives may not like Obama, but they ought to salute his achievement. It is, after all, an honor for the country as well as the man.

By Eugene Robinson

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world’s most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation’s leader—elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority—as unworthy of such recognition?

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

OK, I know, it’s just some conservatives who’ve been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as “Hanoi Jane” behavior. Others who haven’t taken leave of their political senses—and are familiar with the concept of manners—responded to President Barack Obama’s unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Some of Obama’s most strident critics, however, just can’t give it a rest. They use words like farce and travesty, as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Let the rejectionists fulminate and sputter until they wear themselves out. Politically, they’re only bashing themselves. As Republican leaders—except RNC Chairman Michael Steele—are beginning to realize, “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to be a winning slogan.

More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation—by otherwise sane commentators—that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.

If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn’t matter whether Obama won it or not. But of course it means much more. The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world’s approval. For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama’s credit—and to our country’s.

The peace prize comes as Obama is in the midst reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining—and some advocates of a pullout are hoping—that the award may somehow limit the president’s options. But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far. He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations—or that he once called Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Threading that needle is not made any easier or harder by the Nobel committee’s decision.

What I really don’t understand is the view that somehow there’s a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say—as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky-high. Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy. He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children. He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.

The only reasonable response is McCain’s: Congratulations. Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he’s already set it for himself.
   
Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DaveZx3, October 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land: 

“What even traditional conservatism fails to acknowledge is the an unfettered market is essentially anarchism.”

I cannot acknowledge, as a true conservative, that the unfettered market is essentially anarchism.  As Jefferson said, “the contrary spirit produces anarchy.”

The free and sovereign individuals produced by the formation of the Republic of the United States of America, instead of preserving their freedom and individual sovereignty, have given themselves over, for security and economic reasons, to big government and large corporations. 

Government and corporations, to preserve their power over the citizenry, enact pseudo-beneficial laws and policies, which in fact put the citizenry into the slavery and indentured servitude that you speak of. 

The so-called Republican Conservative favors the corporation to “take care of us”, while the so-called Liberal Democrat favors big government to “take care of us.”  They are both full of S___, and they are guilty of conspiracy and treason against the Republic and its people. 

I condemn anyone who would attempt to “take care of me”, except to the extent literally outlined in the Constitution. I condemn those who have manipulated our system and our law to benefit themselves and their consituents to the detriment of the republic. 

Big government and big corporations thrive on crisis and anarchy as we beg them to take care of us, and this produces and perpetuates the despotism and the anarchy you speak of. 

The citizens yell and scream at each other as though we are the problem, when the real problem is originated in those who enslave, mislead and blatantly lie to retain their power and their money, and I don’t care what name they go by.  They are all the same. 

I am a proud American conservative, and I am ready to shitcan the whole bunch, take it back to the foundations and build anew.  Like a house that has become infected with dry rot, termites and general wear and tear, it needs to be rebuilt from the foundation.  There is no other effective way to do it.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 17, 2009 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

I reject your categorization or judgment about my previous statement.  A true conservative by nature cannot be a squanderer.
********************************************

Which is why the groups of people who describe themselves as “Conservatives” are nothing of the sort.  They are radical reactionaries, which is NOT the same thing.

A true Conservative is not only a believer in fiscal responsibility, he believes in conserving natural resources, and is always suspicious of change.

Not many of those around in the C.O.P. (Caucasion-Only Party), aka, the Re-thug-licans.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 17, 2009 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3:

“A true conservative by nature cannot be a squanderer.”

I find your use of the term “squanderer” both interesting and revealing. While I grant you that traditional conservatism carries with it a different connotation, at its core is a belief in an unfettered market—the basis for the low tax, small government philosophy. What even traditional conservatism fails to acknowledge is the an unfettered market is essentially anarchism.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government.  The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism.”

Th unfettered market leads to the very despotism that Jefferson was applting to governments. If anyone doubts this, they need look no further thant their own jobs which clearly are dictatorial. Not has the unfettered market corrupted our democracy, its very nature is an end state of monopoly and indentured servitude.

While our founders were wise, the glaring oversight of there wisdom is the despotism and ability to corrupt of the market. They warned against getting entangled in foreign wars, but did not mention foreign businesss entanglements, which in my opinion can be far more devastating.

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2009 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

for KDELPHI

OK you are off the hook now. I do not believe you taught her the word ‘Trope’.....wink

Its sort of like watching Sesame Street, today we study the letter T…..

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 16, 2009 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

By MarthaA, October 16 at 12:27 pm #

DaveZx3 said:
“As a conservative, I believe in preserving the foundation and kicking out corruption and self-serving wherever it is found.”

MarthaA’s answer:
Duh, that is NOT what conservatives do.  Conservative is a TROPE.  It is the main thing to understand by the people in politics if there is ever going to be change.  When all the people are convinced they are conservative—- they allow conservative politicians into office who work against their best interest. Nothing you say will happen under a conservative reign——ONLY a Liberal reign.  Conservatives ARE self-serving squanderers in politics and do not care how it is done—as long as squandering is completed to their benefit; whereas, Liberals protect and provide for individuals and small businesses.  What you want will only be accomplished through a liberal government, NOT a conservative government. 

DaveZ3 Answers:
As a life-long conservative, I am not a Republican, and I am not responsible for what people do who call themselves conservative.  The so-called neocon is apparently not a true conservative.  One of the primary positions of a true conservative is to conserve the nature of conservatism.  So the very idea that there can be any such thing as neocon is anti-conservative.  Conservatism today is the same thing as conservatism yesterday and does not require a prefix unless it is something completely different. 

I have given up categorizing people with words that change meaning with every blowing of the wind.  People ARE what they think and do, not what name they call themselves. 

I am a person who thinks that the foundation of the USA was established by brilliant and honorable men and women. I wish to preserve the Constitution and our Republic.  Any sort of corruption in government or side-stepping of the Constitution is against what I think and do.  I call myself a conservative, but I could just as easily call myself something else.  Words are fickle.  I have no connection to other people who call themselves conservatives, who do not think and do conservatism. 

I reject your categorization or judgment about my previous statement.  A true conservative by nature cannot be a squanderer.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

“I was left wondering why you chose to ignore his situation and perception of events only to explain how you feel and look upon these issues. You put aside Mr. Al begemy’s equally heartfelt feelings toward President Bush and his decisions.”

I did not ignore them. The final segment explains why I felt that I could not agree or go along with his assertions about president Bush or American action. To expect anyone to become a rapist in order remove a rapist is a flawed logic and at its core is an expectation that someone do harm to themselves and others. I am not taking anything away from him. I allow him his opinons.  Mere disagreement is not a form of dehumanization as you earlier suggested. Nor is expresssing my individuality.

In fact, I would argue that expecting me NOT to express that individuality is a somewhat dilluted form of dehumanization itself.

Take the following two definitions:

1)“The process of stripping away human qualities, such as denying others their individuality and self-esteem.”

2)“to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit”

and my personal favorite

3)“disinhibition of aggression through processes that weaken self-deterring consequences to injurious conduct.”

I did no such things in my letter, even though I disagreed with his conclusions about who might be to blame. Had I called him a “Haji” or a “Punjab,” that would probably classify as blatant dehumanization.

All I did was expresss regret for my actions and for that of my country and gently explain why could not accept his expectation for me to “liberate” his country—even it was our mess to clean up.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

If you play the fiat money game you will lose, the house always wins.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie:

Took a look at the website. There is a lot of good infomration in there. I was troubled by some of it, though. They do discuss what they term “the interest time bomb” and “the Myth of the Money Multiplier” I advocated earlier. The articles were quick to dismiss them as mythology and conjecture. However, both were written pre-crash. Both assume the lending and credit practices are self-correcting. For example, in the “Myth of the Money Mutliplier” it states:

“The Myth:

The money multiplier concept implicitly assumes that the Fed controls the money supply by setting the required reserve ratio, and then issuing enough reserves to enable aggregate bank lending to a multiple of that ratio. Since demand deposits in U.S. banks remain at roughly the expected multiple of reserves, that would seem to confirm the money multiplier thesis. It is then easy to conclude that the causal relation runs from reserves to loans, and thus to deposits. In truth, it runs in exactly the opposite direction.”

The very next paragraph states:

“The money multiplier concept represents a misunderstanding about how the credit money supply grows. Banks with adequate capital can and do lend without adequate reserves on hand.  If a bank has a creditworthy borrower and a profitable lending opportunity, it will issue the loan and then if necessary borrow reserves in the money market to meet the reserve ratio requirement.”

The auhor is attempting to debunk the theory on mere possiblity. While the rest of the article does go on to illustrate that by using an average over 14 days to determine required reserves, banks often lend/borrow reserves from each other, it also states

“As long as the Fed’s policy is to control the Fed funds rate, it must supply whatever reserves are required to meet the demand.”

The “demand” they speak of is princple lending being added to the money supply at interest. The one mechanism left to control rabid lending, the bank’s reserve, is hence removed and subsidized by the FED. In effect, all this really does is to lower the required lendnig reserve of banks.

The other article, “The Interest Time Bomb” states that not having enough currency in the system to cover both principle lending and interest charged
“implies the public’s debt to banks must grow at the compound interest rate, even if the money supply never increased.”

It implies no such thing. While, yes, most interest is lent at compound rates, there are factors that offset public debt growth rate. Rather, what’s implied is that because credit now drives the financial engine, debt is accumulated and deposited with those that will not have the ability to repay, as is evidenced by those who must use credit to purchase food.

Over time, not necessarily in compounded rate that is a 1:1 match with the interest, the bubbles of debt begin to grow to engulf higher and higher earners and in the worst cases, those caught in the bubble must borrow against already borrowed monies.

The article conitnues its def of the myth:

“Thus the interest payments to banks must consume an ever larger fraction of the public’s income, which will eventually drive the economy into the ditch.  A popular name for this thesis is the debt virus.”

Before we get to this next part, remember when this was written. It was written in May 2007, at the hieght of commerical/investment banking. It’s problems are now self-evident.

“Why the Debt Virus Thesis Fails

The debt virus thesis is based on a very incomplete model of money flows. Banks recycle most of their income back to the non-bank public. They borrow from the public and pay interest on those deposits. They pay expenses such as employee wages, overhead costs, expand capital investment, and write off bad loans.  They buy financial assets for investment and as secondary reserves. Out of net earnings, banks pay taxes and shareholder dividends.  All of these return money to the non-bank public.”

Report this

By AFriend, October 16, 2009 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

Your answer was heartfelt and certainly displays a good deal of depth. I would only add that your reply was all about you, how you feel, and how you personally have been effected by your view of events in his country. You didn’t address Mr. Al begemy’s issues.

I was left wondering why you chose to ignore his situation and perception of events only to explain how you feel and look upon these issues. You put aside Mr. Al begemy’s equally heartfelt feelings toward President Bush and his decisions.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

AFriend:

I would answer your friend from Iraq with something close to the following.

“Mr. Al Begemy,

Words cannot express the shame and regret I feel for the horrors visited on you and your people. For my part, I am filled with both sorrow and misery that my country became embroiled in hatred for the Iranians and that in our hatred, we empowered that monster, Saddam Hussein, who murdered so many of your people. That we provided the chemical weapons he used against you and those you loved is simply a crime beyond comprehension. The devastsating sanctions we levied agaisnt your people throughout the 90s played no small part in the detrioration of the social construct of your society and culminated in the recent and bloody sectarian violence.

For the war, I have no explanation to offer you other than our greed. I don’t know how my country came to value cheap oil over human life.

And for the part I played in all of this, directly or passivley, I am eternally shamed. While I realize that it is no consolation, please know that if I had the power, I would levy direct taxes on the oil companies and on the American people to alleviate the suffering of every Iraqi in the form war reparations commensurate with our crimes. Had I the power, the presidents and their agents who did this to you, and by consequence to their own people, would stand trial in our courts. Until they do, I consider this a lawless nation.

As for the monster that we helped to unleash on your people, my education is my monument to his victims. That he raped your people I cannot erase. Know that the cycle stops with me, for becoming a rapist in order to remove one will surely bring only more harm to your people.

I beg your forgiveness and I beg the forgiveness of every Iraqi, Mr. Al Begemy.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 16, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 16 at 4:43am,

DaveZx3 said: “As a conservative, I believe in preserving the foundation and kicking out corruption and self-serving wherever it is found.”

MarthaA’s answer: Duh, that is NOT what conservatives do.  Conservative is a TROPE.  It is the main thing to understand by the people in politics if there is ever going to be change.  When all the people are convinced they are conservative—- they allow conservative politicians into office who work against their best interest.

Nothing you say will happen under a conservative reign——ONLY a Liberal reign.  Conservatives ARE self-serving squanderers in politics and do not care how it is done—as long as squandering is completed to their benefit; whereas, Liberals protect and provide for individuals and small businesses.  What you want will only be accomplished through a liberal government, NOT a conservative government.  An example of a Conservative is Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens:

“The tale begins on Christmas Eve seven years after the death of Ebenezer Scrooge’s business partner Jacob Marley. Three Christmas ghosts visit Scrooge during the course of the night. The first, the Ghost of Christmas Past, takes Scrooge to the scenes of his boyhood and youth which stir the old skinflint’s gentler and tenderer emotions. The second spirit, the Ghost of Christmas Present, takes Scrooge to the home of his nephew Fred and to the humble dwelling of his clerk Bob Cratchit to observe their Christmas dinners. The third spirit, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, harrows Scrooge with dire visions of the future if he does not learn and act upon what he has witnessed (Restad 137).

In Carol, the past and future affect the present and, in order to redeem the future, Scrooge must face and repent his past. Though his past is nothing to relish, it is part of his new self and a source of regeneration and salvation. Crippled Tiny Tim does not die as the ghost foretold and Scrooge becomes a different man, treating his fellow men with kindness, generosity, and compassion, and gaining a reputation as a man who embodies the spirit of Christmas (Restad 137-8).

Scrooge’s redemption underscores the conservative, individualistic, and patriarchal aspects of Dickens’s ‘Carol philosophy’ which depended on a more fortunate individual willingly looking after a less fortunate one who had demonstrated his worthiness to receive such attention. Government or other agencies were not called upon to effect change in an economy that created extremes of wealth and poverty but personal moral conscience and individual action in a narrow interpretation of the old forms of ‘noblesse oblige’ were [expected] to do so (Restad 139).

Report this

By AFriend, October 16, 2009 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

Mr. Al begemy understands the history of Iraq and Saddam Hussein a great deal better than myself. It’s my understanding that he would suggest that you are indeed advocating a course of action that is harmful to others. He would say that you hold a simplistic view of his history, culture and family still in Iraq.

He appears to believe that Hussein was the direct cause of over 4 million human deaths. He appears to believe Hussein’s two Sons were raised to believe that any Iraqi life was theirs to decide their own will. He appears to believe Hussein eradicated entire cultures in the Iraqi marshlands that had lived there for thousands of years. He appears to believe that the almost 500,000 humans found in mass graves was but the tip of the problem. I think it’s a mistake to dismiss his point of view. And while I’m not certain; I believe he may suggest you tend to dehumanize his life and perceptions so that you can feel better about your own opinions.

—-

I remain disheartened by your perceptions and oversimplification of what “conservatives” think and feel. From my perspective, obviously more conservative then yourself, you appear to hold an odd media caricature of what it means to be “conservative”. 

Would you be surprised to learn that I am pro choice, pro gun control, anti capital punishment and believe the last Republican congress spent money like drunken sailors?

And while I paid attention to President Clinton’s numerous dire warnings regarding the threat that was Saddam Hussein , and Clinton’s deep desire and attempts to remove Hussein from power in Iraq, and the Iraqi people’s overwhelming support of having Hussein removed from his position, it was a mistake to topple Hussein before stabilizing Afghanistan after Sept. 11.

—-

Your words drip with hatred and contempt toward, what you perceive to be, the “conservative set. If I may? Being more conservative does not make a human bad and/or evil. They simply hold a different perspective.

And, one more time, perception is everything.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie:

Thanks. I’ll check it out and get back to you. In the mean time, you can download “Modern Money Mechanics” from the link below. (You’ll need adobe reader.)

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

I think anyone who digs into it and uses some basic math, can see that no where in their equations for the creation of currency is the interest being accounted for in the money supply. In fact, interest is barely mentioned. Banks are required only to keep 10% of their deposits in reserve and are free to use the other 90% as the basis for new loans. This is a violation of the fundamental principles of transaction theory: that we exchange things considered equal in value. Instead, when we take out a loan, that currency is created out of thin air. The banks are not putting up anything of value in return.

By adding roughly 90% of additional currency on top of what is created for the principle amount of loans, which includes every swipe of a credit card, we drive down the value of the dollar in the form of inflation. If every person, organization, and government in this country paid off its debts, not only would there be no money in circulation, the interest would still be outstanding.

Money = Debt.

Because there is not enough money in circulation to cover both principle loan amounts and interest charged, as a people we are effectively indentured to the banks. That differential has been likened to a game of musical chairs where someone is always left out by design. It forces us to compete against one another to attain not just “goods and services,” but sustenance necessary for life.

According to this document, the Fed asserts that it can reverse the trend simply by reversing the process of currency creation. That may have been true at one point, but once credit replaced manufactoring as the driving force of our economy, this proved false. As we now know all too well, the push in this economic crisis has not bee job creation, but to get the credit markets moving again.

Since the Fed (which can hardly be classified as “federal”) came into existence we’ve seen a hundred fold increase in dollar devaluation/inflation. Inflation amounts to an indrect taxation that does not go toward the people but to the banks. That’s all great, provided wages keep up with it, which they clearly do not.

Their counter argument is that the fractional reserve banking system expands goods and services to people who would not otherwise have it. This may be true to a degree, but the larger picture is that it creates the illusion of ownership, wealth and security while driving us to pay our debt forward to disadvantaged people at home and in the devloping world through the WTO and the IMF.

On this point, I would agree with Ron Paul, the one Republican on Captial Hill that I still respect. We should pull out of the WTO and the IMF, end the Fed, put currency creation back under the control of democracy, and establish a debt free currency as Lincoln intended.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

One caveat to my point:

The same logic that conservatives use is war is also used in the market when confronted with the people it treats as fodder.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 6:23 am Link to this comment

While I have not doubt that your friend (or even conservatives) may have legitimate grievances, I am not selecting a course of action that harms another. I do not dismiss the pain he or his countryment endured under the rule of Sadaam or Brenner as irrelevant. Contrary to that is the oft cited conservative answer to human suffering that it has caused: “That’s just the way war is.” In its purest form, it is a state of denial.

He may agree with the violent overthrow of Sadaam, but in doing so he sacrifices all caught in the crossfire who had nothing to do with Sadaam, either consciously or unconsciously, as acceptable losses. Violence and dehumanization beget only reciprocal violence and dehumanization. Dr King was well aware of this and was able to wage an entire revolution without ever firing a shot, though shots were certainly fired at him by the defenders of the status quo.

Report this

By AFriend, October 16, 2009 at 4:25 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

I’m not sure you addressed my question.

How certain are you that you are not the one dehumanizing Mr. Al begemy in order to keep your view the world?

Report this

By AFriend, October 16, 2009 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

One caveat. President Clinton didn’t actually “get” a balanced budget through the Republican Congress. The balanced budget was devised and written by the Republican Congress and ultimately signed by the president. We should give credit where credit is due.

We shouldn’t ignore the voting record. It was the 107th-108th, Republican controlled, Congress that spent like drunken sailors. Note: The majority of Democrats (107th-108th) in both and House and Senate voted for those spending increases.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 16, 2009 at 4:17 am Link to this comment

AFriend:

The difference is not only the end state but how you get there. I am well aware of Einstein’s “fast moving train” thought experiment regarding perception as reality. Einsteain also believed that we were each connected in space and time.

Perception is no excuse for a chosen path. It was that kind of thinking that led the previous administration and its yes men at FOX to believe that all they really needed to master was perception management. They did a “heckuva job” at it too.

And when it fails or goes awry, those who failed then blame the very people they were trying to manipulate for not being manipulated. For seeing through it.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 16, 2009 at 3:28 am Link to this comment

Dave:

If all self-described “conservatives” were like you, truly conservative, I’d respect them. 

Remember: It was Bill Clinton who got a balanced budget through Congress, and George Bush who tossed it out to create massive deficits—even BEFORE 9/11 hit.  Bush&Co; CREATED the credit mess—and then forked over hundreds of billions to banks with NO oversight—other than Paulsen’s desire to kill Goldman,Sachs rivals and save Goldman’s would-be Waterloo—AIG.

Ronald Reagan talked balanced budget, but under him and a Republican Senate and effective Republican House (GOP + Blue Dog DINOs=Republican majority) ballooned the deficit to unprecedented levels—proving the Laffer Curve was NOT effective public policy.

Obama’s pushing a deficit neutral health care package—again, Dems saying don’t expand the deficit.

Radical reactionaries call themselves “conservative” but that’s like Exxon claiming to be an environmentally-friendly company.

MarthaA leaves out one point that reinforces her position: The GOP made PERSONAL bankruptcy far harder, so if you walk away from your debts, your ability to declare bankruptcy and not be in thrall to “the bank” for the rest of your life is almost completely gone.  They brought us one step closer back to slavery and Debtor’s Prison.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 16, 2009 at 1:43 am Link to this comment

MarthaA,

I guess I agree that there are fiscal conservatives and political conservatives, but I really don’t profess to be an intellectual on the subject.

I am merely trying to state a simple principle that was instilled in me early.  You have a right to the rewards of your honest, hard work.  Taking your property from you against your will is stealing. 

My political views are equally simple and conservative in my opinion.  We have a checks and balances government with Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches.  They should stick to what they are supposed to be doing, no more, no less.  We have a two party system to encourage debate on the issues.  Treat the other party with respect, they are not your enemy.  And we have a strong constitution which is perfectly sustainable if given the chance.  So quit side-stepping it because it is not convenient for your agenda. 

The USA has an excellent framework.  So what do we lack?  Honest, hard working citizens, in my opinion.  Politics and government have become grossly corrupt.  Corporate America has become grossly corrupt.  There is good reason to believe that medicine, science, education, religion, and the military have become corrupt.  And who is to blame?  THE CITIZENRY!!

If we were a democracy we could blame it on the majority.  But the founders were smart enough to set up a Repulic, in which each citizen is sovereign, so a majority cannot overrun the individual or the minority. 

There is no reason for America to fail or to get eaten up by foreign interests.  Only the laziness of the citizenry can make America fail, wherein they do not make the effort to preserve the foundation which they have been given. 

As a conservative, I believe in preserving the foundation and kicking out corruption and self-serving wherever it is found.  I am not fanatical, nor am I beligerent about it, but I am never going to apologize for it.  Because again, I do love America, and I believe we can correct our ills in a civil manner if we have the will to do it.  We are empowered to do it, but don’t have the guts, so far.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 16, 2009 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 16 at 2:37am,

DaveZx3:  “I have been a fiscal conservative all my life,”

MarthaA says:  There is a massive big difference between a fiscal conservative and a political conservative.  The politician tells you that they are fiscal conservatives, but the very fact that they are politicians is evident that they are political conservatives

Politics is leadership of constituents in their best interest and non-constituents AGAINST their best interest. How fiscal conservative is that?

Politicians are NOT fiscal conservative; it isn’t the nature of the beast.  ALL conservatives in government are political and are looking to make the best deal for corporations, big business and industry——NOT individuals or the best interest of the nations population——only profit for big corporations, big pharma, big banks, big insurance, big business, and big industry——nothing little or medium in the nation gets the interest of political conservatives except in empty rhetoric.

I am also a fiscal conservative——but I am politically liberal for the sake of the nation’s population and the nation itself.

Conservative is a TROPE that is used to confuse against the best interest of the population as a whole.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 16, 2009 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Wealth is not the pretty linen with pictures of dead leaders printed on it. Real
wealth is food, water, knowledge, energy and the ability to be self sufficient.
The post below shows why you need grit to walk away, it also clearly
demonstrates the sheep mentality. Being self sufficient means that you do not
need a job to earn slave money from the corporations. Get off your knees,
grow a pair and live like a human being.

By MarthaA, October 16 at 2:48 am #

stcfarms,

You can’t walk away from a mortgage debt——the bank will sell your house to
someone else, really cheap; then sue you and garnish your wages to pay the
difference in the bank’s sale price of your house and your original loan price
on your house, a debt that you walked out on and a house you no longer own
——but will still have to continue paying for the house’s original loan you took
out,  while someone else enjoys living in your house and is also paying the
bank for their new loan on the same house.  When you walk out—the bank
even makes more money—or destroys you in the process.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 16, 2009 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

As an atheist that is one of the reasons that I am building an island to leave.
Another reason that I am leaving is that I went to a lot of disasters while in the
Navy, I have seen my fellow man at his worst and it is coming here. One good
thing about empires, they encourage dissident to leave. Empires do this
because they do not want to infect the sheep with truth or logic. Civilization
‘allows’ freedom on the frontier, they figure that they will steal it when it is
tamed. The only frontier left on earth is the ocean. You cannot stop the
collapse of the empire, you can only get out of it’s way. China and India are
the up and coming empires, I do not want to be around when they call the
debt in.

By DaveZx3, October 16 at 2:37 am #

ONE NATION UNDER GOD

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 15, 2009 at 11:48 pm Link to this comment

stcfarms,

You can’t walk away from a mortgage debt——the bank will sell your house to someone else, really cheap; then sue you and garnish your wages to pay the difference in the bank’s sale price of your house and your original loan price on your house, a debt that you walked out on and a house you no longer own——but will still have to continue paying for the house’s original loan you took out,  while someone else enjoys living in your house and is also paying the bank for their new loan on the same house.  When you walk out—the bank even makes more money—or destroys you in the process.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 15, 2009 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment

stcfarms says: 
“There is a way out of the dilemma if you have the grit. The fiat money system depends on debt, if you walk away from the debt you will lose your over priced house, car or whatever but you will be free”.

Great, true words.  If only there was some sort of a half-way house for families and individuals recovering from this debt addiction. 

I have been a fiscal conservative all my life, and I believe in the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor.  And I love America (contrary to what Eugene Robinson is implying). 

Receiving any type of reward when one has not worked for it is anti-American, from a conservative viewpoint. 

My problem with Obama’s Peace Prize is just that.  The work has to come first and then the award. He may possibly do well enough in his presidency to earn a peace award, the jury is still out. 

I believe that from the a socialist standpoint, awards/rewards can be given for reasons other than good honest hard work.  People are given awards/rewards due to past social injustice or oppression.  Unfortunately this does not end injustice or oppression, it perpetuates it. 

If there is someone oppressing you, then work harder, be more honest, be more moral, and speak kindly of the oppressor.  By doing so, you will bury him quickly in his own bad works and hypocrisy, and you will be indebted to no one.  You will have true freedom.  That is the American way.  WORK HARDER!!

Doing otherwise is to stoop to the level of the oppressor and prove you have no more right to an unjust reward than he does.  If you take his money you are a thief, and if you eat the crumbs from his table, you are a slave. 

Right now, most Americans of all persuasions and political ideologies are sliding deeply into thievery and slavery due to some very big, shadowy international oppressor.  I do not think anyone of us, from Obama down, know the true nature of our current oppression/dilemma.  We are all deluded to some extent, but all believing that our truth is the real truth. 

But stcfarms is absolutely correct, we have to have the grit to walk away and refresh the Nation and reboot the Constitution.  We have to quit bickering among ourselves and encourage each other to be strong and persevere in the American ideals which have made us great, while acknowledging the American traditions which have been oppressive to some. 

True conservatives love America, and we love its promise, and we are ready to work with all people to restore its glory, ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!  That is the true conservative story.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 15, 2009 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

There is a way out of the dilemma if you have the grit. The fiat money system
depends on debt, if you walk away from the debt you will lose your over priced
house, car or whatever but you will be free. When you walk away from your
debt the banks are stuck with the loss. Pay cash or barter for what you need
and never borrow from anyone. Learn to be self sufficient in food water,
energy et cetera and the bastards cannot own you. The first few years you will
need to live like a Spartan but it will pass as you are not giving half of
everything that you earn to bankers.


By No_Man’s_Land, October 15 at 8:54 pm #

To sum it up, we’re all working for the banks and it is mathematically
impossible to ever get out of hock because of the fractional reserve banking
system we adopted over the Greenback (a debt free dollar).

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

If your name was Shalawi Ied Ilth Al begemy, Son of Ied Ilth Al begemy, now residing in Deerborn you may be called a passionate but misguided man. And why? Your every perception of the United States and President Bush would mean everything in determining your opinions. You would passionately disagree with AFriend and/or No_Man. There is nothing dehumanizing in understanding this.

How certain are you that you are not the one dehumanizing Mr. Al begemy in order to keep your view the world?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land—I have gotten many of my present ideas about money from W. F. Hummel (http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/).  When I first noticed equities and real estate prices were rising sharply for no reason, and yet there was no noticeable inflation in the labor or manufactured goods areas, I couldn’t figure out how that could work.  Hummel explained it (I think) as expansion due to credit money, which the rich can obtain much more readily than the poor.  Eventually, the money outran belief in it, and the markets crashed.  Now, I believe, private credit is being replaced by government credit; but people can stop believing in governments, too.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

I share my personal views and expereinces in order to humanize the discussion. I never intended to imply that there weren’t those who disagreed. Only those who tend dehumanize on any and every issue and those who do not. Cheney and Coulter come to mind.

Nor can I follow the logic used to justify such stances. In order to protect our humanity we have to shed it? Again, Cheney comes to mind in his stalwart defense of torture and “spending time in the dark side” and “in the shadows” (his words, not mine).

Dehumaniztion always escalates into more dehumanization until someone decides they’ve had enough. I guess I had enough.

And finally, like a terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on your chosen perspective), I have to prove myself louder and “crazier.” Sadly, its often the only way to be heard. Once a more rational bunch starts talking about it, the issue is finally addressed.

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

A few final questions on the subject?

If the perceptions of others is not everything to them, then why go to such lengths to share your own perceptions and, does this necessarily mean you are right and the Iraqi families in Deerborn know little on what they speak of? How certain are you that it’s not you who are dehumanizing the very real lives and experiences of others?

—-

As sure as I am sitting here, and you there, there are people who passionately disagree with our views. They perceive everything we’ve written quite differently. Their lives, their perceptions of their lives, is everything to them. It’s the very reason they have an opinion.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie:

If you have not yet done so, you should read a publican put out by the Federal Reserve called “Modern Money Mechanics.” If you take a look at the math they use to create currency through debt, you will see there is not enough currency in the money supply to cover the interest on our debt.

In short, banks have been given the right to create money merely through lending, but only the principle amount is ever coined by the FED. They are creating money out of thin air and then giving banks the right to charge interest without putting up anything of value in return.


Think of it like this:
For every 10 dollars that is borrowed, approximately 90 more dollars are entering the money supply.

This practice, not only devalues the dollar exponentially, the interest that is created from the loans is sent down the food chain and deposited in the form of debt at the lowest levels. That where we get the differential that drives people into the work place. Over time, bubles of debt begin to grow.

Our game, and the reason we have to be so aggressive in opening up business opportuinties abroad, is that we can’t afford to hold on to that debt domestically. We have to export it by hook or by crook down the food chain of the world.

To sum it up, we’re all working for the banks and it is mathematically impossible to ever get out of hock because of the fractional reserve banking system we adopted over the Greenback (a debt free dollar).

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:

I appreciate your point of view and will concede that perception is important and plays a large role in how we view events. I will not go so far as to say that it is “everything” though. I think far more important is to retain our common sense of humanity and the true impact we have on others. That takes effort not an angle. It is the tendency to dehumanize, be it by Sadaam, Bush, you, or myself, that leads to the torture chambers in the first place. When they stop being people to us and instead become “human capital,” in essence they have become objects to be managed in a larger machiavellian machine. They become expendable. And that, sir, is counter to everything we’ve ever claimed to stand for.

I will leave you with this. This modern conservative movement that you have associated yourself with, in all its romanticized fervor and self-professed glory, came to power and made a series of profound decisions with a casual cowboy swagger that treated war as though it were a Monday Night Football game. In its attempt to return America to the glory of yester-year, it took both friends and family and violated the most sacred of trusts that can be bestowed on any person or group of people by another. Countless thousands have died that were never a threat to us and this nation has been wounded.

In return, I offer them healthcare and my brutal honesty, even if they deserve neither. 
 
I appreciate that you have reached out on this forum. You have proven yourself to be rather magnanomous in that regard. My only regret is that such a dialogue was neither present nor desired 8 years ago.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 15, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Obama was an Illinois politician for years and he rose quickly through the
ranks. If you lived in Illinois you would know that only corrupt politicians can
be elected here.

By Shingo, October 15 at 6:12 pm #

Is it becasue Obama is corrupt or becasue he’s simply a weak persident?  I’m
inclined to believe the latter.

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

My point was in regards to perceptions. I think now we can agree there are others who do not share our point of view. Perception is everything.

Yes my point was devoid of your perceptions. To make my point there was no honest reason to include my or your point of view. Deriding me for not including your point of view stumps me. You may detest that others feel differently on the subject of President Bush. Does it then become your obligation to be the asshole police? LOL

—-

I enjoy listening. As only a single exmaple I offer this….

I’ve traveled to Deerborn Mi. within the past three years. There’s a terrific local eatery by the name of La shish, in one of the largest Middle Eastern communities in the U.S.. Would it surprise you to learn that after many hours of discussion with several dozens of regulars, largely from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, the vast majority were supportive of the United States both near and far abroad?

Would it surprise you to learn that every Iranian man I listened to the ask the same question? “When will Bush topple “our” government”?

I can tell you this. I have spoken and listened to many. In this one case I was surprised not to have found even a single Iranian man who spoke ill of President Bush. And believe me they relished in speaking freely lol… 

Of the dozens of Iraqi born men I listened to I found seven who hated and distrusted President Bush (Bush brought down the Twin Towers etc.). Several of these men traveled from Iraq with their families after 2003. After “shock and awe”. After the insurgency. After Saddam was captured and put to death.

I offer only what I have myself witnessed. My own opinion will remain my own.

I think we can agree. Perception is everything.

Report this

By Shingo, October 15, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

RdV,

When did I say anything about giving Obama more time?  Perhaps my argument wasn’t clear so let me re-phrase it.  I think that the statu quo in Washington is so immovable that Obama hasn’t got a chance.

I am not apologizign for Obama, I’m stating that I don’t think it can be done, short fo a massive crisis.

It was obvious what the outcome would be from the beginning.  His picks like Robert Gates and Larry Summers and co.  It was clear from the outset that it would be business as usual.  Is it becasue Obama is corrupt or becasue he’s simply a weak persident?  I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Yes, there have been “movers and shakers” in the past, but those were from a different era and a different Washington.  The lobbys have a stranglehold on Congress, unlike anythign that existed in the 40’s or the 50’s.  The last guy who tried to take them on ended up with a bullet in his head.

I’m not making excuses for Obama.  I just happend to believe that the political leadership in this country is irreperably broken.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:
‘Anarcissie, I was simply addressing the trigger events of 2008. I agree with you on loose credit practices being the most significant cause. In the case of Fannie and Freddie -the trigger- credit practices in the housing market were mandated by the U.S. Congress. All under the watchful eyes of “regulation” and “oversight.” Today every home loan in America is charged a $40.00 fee to Fannie Mae.

With that said: The free market system has lifted more people out of poverty, illness and starvation than any monetary system in human history. ...’

Federal monetary policy is not the free market.  In a truly free monetary market, anyone could issue money and the value of all kinds of money and commodities used as money would float according to good old supply and demand.  Governments prefer to monopolize the production and destruction of money because it gives them more control over their citizens, especially their economic behavior.  In the case of the U.S. Government, at least since the 1980s, and probably before, there has been a determined policy of expanding credit money by artificially driving down interest rates.  I am not sure exactly what the purpose of this policy is, but it has been accompanied by a curious mix of imperial war and deindustrialization.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:

I am not assuming or claiming you haven’t. And i am sure that some very real human connections were made in your expereinces. I certainly appreciate what I believe to be your sincerity here.

This isn’t about veteran’s status though. The point I was trying to make was that such statements are devoid of any acknolwedgement of the harm that has been caused. There is a reason the famous shoe thrower de Bush became a folk hero in Iraq and throughout the broader Middle east. There is no greater insult from them without killing someone.

The Liberation of Iraq is nothing more than an “Animal Farm” changing of the guard: one evil for another. If people perceive it to be something nice and noble, its because they want or need to. I certainly did not “want” to come to these conlcusions about my country or even conservatives. They were, however, forced on me. Prior to GW, I was very much an independent who actually leaned to the right. But I saw that party change and then I saw what it did and then I asked why.

I’ve seen full-bird colonols stand there with their hands on their hips, literally comparing themselves to Patton, calling Iraqi towns and villages “my battlespace.” (What kind of sick term is that if you’re liberating people?) Well. A battle we got—just like he wanted. Just like he’d been daydreaming of his entire life. Just like the President wanted. And just like every Dixie-chicing conservative that voted twice for that village idiot wanted. (BTW: that jack-ass colonel is now a general. I guess he was finally able to double his “battlespace.”)

You may be different, but then again no one ever seems to admit this kind of stuff. The truth is the truth, though. They got off on it—from day 1—every bit as much as that bonehead colonel.

One last thing. We also “liberated” our allies, the Dutch, in WWII. They talk of the American bombing of their cities and towns to this day. They certainly don’t see American liberation as having been the romantic lie that so many of us do. To them, they were traumatized by both Germans and Americans during that war. That was nearly 65 years ago. I’m sure its still pretty raw for Iraqis too.

Report this

By ardee, October 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

I can suppose that this my surprise you, however, I have spoken to several Afghani’s and Iraqi’s into the hundreds. Very few I have spoken and listened to share your perception of the U.S. or, what the U.S. has done in their respective countries.

Aside from poor polling technique one can imagine an Iraqi family,residing in Baghdad electricity on a few hours a day, unreliable water supply, city still shattered, friends and relatives dead by the score, hospitals and schools still closed relating just how happy they are for their American allies to be on every street corner manhandling their wives and daughters…oh yeah cant you?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

De profundis:
My point exactly: Without the ideals that go into our Constitution our beautiful nation is nothing but a hunk of stolen land being exploited and poisoned.

Thanks, Shingo, Seph.

No, Keith Olberman has been calling it “Fox Noise” for years.

Heck, even STC picked up on the idea that “America was founded on Jesus Christ” is about as UN-American as you can get.  The poster who said that is NO different than the Taliban, just a different flavor of intolerant religious fanaticism, the ultimate WORST BLIGHT on human history.  A friend, raised by Jesuits, used to insist that without the Catholic Church cutting off education and the spread of information, we would have landed on the Moon a thousand years earlier!

He’s not that far off—the Renaissance would probably have started about 800-1000 years earlier—and that led to all things progressive in the West.

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

If I may? You assume far too much. And you appear to allow Fox, Rush, Bush and others to influence your every perception.

Perception IS everything. You cannot honestly deny, what most know to be, a universal truth.

—-

I can suppose that this my surprise you, however, I have spoken to several Afghani’s and Iraqi’s into the hundreds. Very few I have spoken and listened to share your perception of the U.S. or, what the U.S. has done in their respective countries.

I will freely admit my own surprise when listening to their stories and perceptions. I hold my own opinions of U.S. actions abroad but I cannot allow my own opinions to keep me from listening to others.

I’ve been in battle, my friend. I’ve seen and felt the horrors. You make a terrific mistake in assuming so much.

Again. My intention is not to offend.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:

I appreciate that but the point stands. Those kind of statements, made by you, me or anyone else are less about trying to understand something and more about trying rationalize or diminish.

And, to be perfectly honest, when I hear statements like that, I hear foxnews and limbaugh playing with casualty rates again in an effort manipulate public opinion by diminishing the danger and impact of the very war they helped sell us into. I see George Bush standing in fornt of his “mission accomplished” banner while he cracks his cocky little smirk and so boldy challenges them to “bring it on.” I see “retired” generals, now employed as consultants and “military analysists,” peppered across the news channels, regurgitating Pentagon talking points that they know are false—like the pathetic cowards they are. Indeed, the entire propagnada and information campaigns that were waged against the American public replay all over again.

And then my bullshit meter pegs.

It’s offensive to me, to any Iraqi or Afghan that reads it, or any family member who lost a loved one over there. That war will hang as an albatross around our necks for all time just as slavery has. We should be ashamed of ourselves for ever allowing our president to piss with such a methodic double stream of machismo on humanity and our Constitution. We should be ashamed of ourselves for reelecting him instead of putting he and his entire cabinet on trial for high crimes against the nation and humanity.

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land—“Such statements are made only from safe distances and usually intended to deflate the significance of an event, dehumanize a situtaion, or rationalize a course of action known to be otherwise.”

—-

My intention is not to offend and I’m sorry for any pain.

You assume a great deal without asking first if I have shared in the same type of pain. You allowed your perceptions of this writer take the forefront.

I intended no harm.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 15, 2009 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

So your god approved of the slaughter of millions of Indians? You are ignorant
even by christian standards (the lowest standards known to man).

By Billy T., October 14 at 1:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

You are either for Jesus Christ or you are against him and you will be judged
by HIS standards at judgement,that is the foundation in which this country was
founded upon.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

de profundis clamavi

The new America that is loved:

-Anything that makes me feel superior, domestically and internationally.
-Cable television/McOp-Ed News.
-My version of Christianity. (Yours is clearly wrong)
-Cyclical debt and therapeutic shopping cycles
-“A Christmas Story” played on endless loop for 72 hrs during the holidays (if we get them).
-Holidays (whether we get them or not) whose marketing campaigns and decorations are hoisted upon us 4-months out.
-$15.00 fat-dripping popcorn and black sugar-syrup at a theater playing a film that has to specify its moral at the end through last minute dialogue.
-The 140 character limit imposed by twitter on all human thought.
-Planned obsolescnce in all “upgrades” to our infrastructure.
-The lowest bidder sale of public land, assets, and property to corporations who use it turn a profit.
-TVs in every room and families that don’t know each other anymore.
-Assembly line pop music
-My right to further stagnate my income and to demand the same of others.
-The singluar lesson from history: the appeasement of Adolf Hitler.
-Anyone named “Joe” whose surname is their occupation.
-Air assaults on moose and wolf populations.
-“Camping” with mobile homes on cement slabs.
-Paying for water, heat, and electricty.
-Not knowing where my food comes from.
-Minivans
-Obesity (because they’re currently in the majority)

Report this
de profundis clamavi's avatar

By de profundis clamavi, October 15, 2009 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

What exactly is this “America” and why should anybody profess to love it or be accused of hating it?

There is the physical country itself, which is a magnificent treasure of unparalleled natural beauty and bountiful resources. Is this “America”? Do Americans “love” it? Well, if love means never having to say you’re sorry to a frustrated strip mall or McMansion developer, or a thwarted mountaintop coal mining coorporation, or a dispossessed agribusiness factory farm corporation, or a broken-hearted would-be fast food franchise, then it is clear that those Americans who have the power to decide who gets to own land and for what purpose love their country truly, deeply and passionately.

What about the thousands of communities, rural and urban, industrial and agricultural, white, black, native, immigrant, old and new, northern, southern, midwestern, mountain, coastal. Are these communities all equally “American” and are they all loved by everybody in equal measure? Are communities like Aspen CO, Jackson Hole WI, Naples FL, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard MA, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, Greenwich CT, Bethesda MD and Beverly Hills CA more “American” and do they deserve more love than Detroit, Cleveland, the Bronx, Baltimore, New Orleans and thousands of shuttered ex-manufacturing towns and de-populated farming commmunities? If not, then why has our ruling class embraced a philosophy and an economic system that rewards those who display the most ruthlessness, callousness, cruelty and efficiency in shutting down formerly profitable industries, turning formerly proud and prosperous communities into blighted ruins, lending money to the beleaguered newly-poor on terms that only the Mafia could impose before the abolition of usury laws, and ratcheting up public and private debt to unsustainable levels?

How about our political ideals and institutions - democracy, the Constitution, opportunity for all, a safe, secure and dignified life for anybody who is willing to work hard. Are these still “America” and does anybody still love them? Does America’s ruling class show its love for these ideals and institutions by ignoring the citizens and embracing, instead, corporate lobbyists, by spending freely on foreign wars while state and municipal governments go bankrupt, by allowing a bloated financial sector to squeeze profits out of all the formerly productive sectors of the economy, by allowing a globalized corporate elite to export America’s manufacturing and technological capacity along with millions of jobs? If the class of people who are responsible for all this destruction profess to love “America”, do you believe them, and is their “America” a country you still recognize and call your own?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 15, 2009 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land get you numbers straight. The 100,000 were killed in 2003 in the initial massed bombardment of the second war on Iraq by the USA. From 1990-2003 between the war, the illegal bombing of infrastructure and brutal sanctions around 1.252 million died. 500,000 of them children younger than 5. [Madeline Albrite found it a number she could live with.] Then since 2003 over 1.5 million dead and many more wounded. It is a holocaust and a huge war crime encompassing many smaller ones. Remember that.

The so-called conservatives love an America most of us would hate and be fearful of. About 12% are the hard core theocrats—Dominionists of different types and they have recruited others who like much of what they want and will follow till it is too late. A mass movement probably the 32%-35% or even more. Ironically Obama is doing their bidding and pushing their agenda even as he is relentlessly attacked the way JFK was and we saw the aftermath of that.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 15, 2009 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Eugene,

The FRAME of “Love and Hate” is a false frame.

The FRAME  that defines what has been happening in America from Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II is “Benefit from Markets and Resources and “NO Benefit from Markets and Resources”.

The Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS see themselves as the Worthy Wealthy, that deserve all of the benefit from markets and resources; and everyone else as the Unworthy Poor, that are depriving them of the benefit from ALL of the markets and resources that they, as the Worthy Wealthy, deserve.

There is nothing that anyone can say that is a part of the Unworthy Poor, or those representative of the Unworthy Poor,——the Unworthy Poor being 90% of the population of the United States,——that has merit or value, because recognition of merit for benefit or accomplishment for the Unworthy Poor, and those representative of the Unworthy Poor, will diminish benefit from markets and resources as an entitlement for the Worthy Wealthy.

This idealism and philosophy is taught in the churches of the Evangelical Movement and used to keep the Unworthy Poor in their place, as supporters of the Worthy Wealthy as God’s Will.

It would be good if we ALL, as Americans, could get past the “binary emotional rhetoric” FRAME that is propaganda, so that false frames like “Why Do Conservatives Hate America” would cease to be of importance, and as an American people we could look more at cause and effect, benefit, markets and resources, and see that there is a Class War going on in America and that politics, “leadership of constituents in their best interests and non-constituents against their best interests”, to obtain disproportionate benefit from dwindling resources and shrinking markets, as a result of deindustrialization and financialization of the U.S. Economy.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

No its not. Next time sometime you lose someone close to you or you have to watch them suffer, see how that overly-simplified explanation flies. Go ahead an tell yourself that its only a matter of perception. Its like telling the mother holding the bloody corpse of her child to look on the bright side or that its all in her mind. Or, perhaps you could have serial killer sneak into your home at night and murder your entire family, while sit here and tell you to consider all the people he didn’t kill.

Such statements are made only from safe distances and usually intended to deflate the significance of an event, dehumanize a situtaion, or rationalize a course of action known to be otherwise.

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land, - “a matter of perception? spoken like a person who has never seen a war. if that kind of a statement isn’t proof of a lack of liberal media bias, i don’t know what is.”

—-

Perception is everything, yes?

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 15, 2009 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

“His supporters would say he liberated 50 million people from the worst type of tyranny”

hmmm. the iraqi people threw off the oppressive shackles of saddam’s torture chambers to embrace the new enighted american version. and, disregarding the 100,000 killed by sectarian violence, american combat action, and contractor cowboys, how about the several hundred thousand that died from the second and third order effects of disease, rampant crime, accidents and lack of health care?

wait a minute. people dying because of no healthcare? i guess that is truly an american style liberation. i’m sure all the orphans running around iraqi streets high on paint fumes and robbing people blind are thankful as well. luckily, they’ll all soon feel the wonders of the oil profits that will make it all better. plus, they’ll finally be able to afford the clean up for all that depleted uranium from our sabot rounds and bunker busters.

a matter of perception? spoken like a person who has never seen a war. if that kind of a statement isn’t proof of a lack of liberal media bias, i don’t know what is.

Report this

By AFriend, October 15, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Outraged, October 15 at 2:19 am #

Re: Eugene

Quote:  ”The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.”

—-

I would add that perception is everything.

Take the previous president as another example. His supporters would say he liberated 50 million people from the worst type of tyranny and, according to the U.N., saved tens of millions of lives in Africa with the Millennium Challenge. More would say President Bush was the first U.S. President in history to call for a two state solution in the West Bank and Gaza and, prevented an out of control arms race between Iran and Iraq.

Detractors, addle-brained or otherwise, would say none if this is true and Bush did everything wrong.

Perception is everything.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, October 15, 2009 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Geez Ray Duray:
  So Truman “dragged” US into the Korean War…?  I’ll bet that would be news to Gen. MacArthur.  So I guess that the Ren Hai Shu (human sea tactics) of the ChiComs had nothing to do with our going to the rescue of Seoul etc.?  I lived thru that era and as I recall, the US not only kicked the commies out of the South but also allowed the South to build one of the top economies in SEA.  Even Libertarians would say that it was an effort well spent. 
    Some critics (fans of starting thermonuclear wars) would say Truman stopped too soon when we might have taken all of Korea.  But most of US try to stay out of everybody else’s business - except for so-called “conservatives” who seem to poke their noses into just about EVERYbody’s asses. 
    The US presence in South Korea today is a major deterrent to future Chinese inroads - not to mention keeping a viable trading partner.
    As a famous instructor once said, “Wo gausung ni wo gausung ni; keshr ni hai bujrdau.”  (I’ve told you and told you; but you still don’t know!)
    Why DO conservatives LOVE war so much?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2009 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

Crowhaul:
‘The absolute beauty of Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize is the fact that it further disturbs the conservative world view. ...’

I don’t see how.  “Conservatives” already think Europe is a mess, a bunch of socialists and atheists with a declining economy and no political or cultural coherence.  It would seem only natural to conservatives that, when someone like the Europeans sprang up in America, Europe would applaud wildly.  The fact that there is actually very little basis for giving Mr. O the prize is just icing on the cake.

Moreover, I think the more Machiavellian conservatives believe that the Nobel Peace Prize can be used against Obama in a number of ways, as by making him seem ridiculous, or by further alienating people on the Left who were already disaffected.  He would have been well advised to respectfully decline it.

(I’m using the word conservatives here as the media do and as apparently above, but actually it is Obama who is the conservative, in accord with the Democratic Party leadership.)

Report this

By RdV, October 15, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

Shingo—More pathetic excuses, following the predictable litany of worn apologies-

    Give him more time! (this started as soon as it was apparent that Obama was furthering a Bush course and has continued up to the present despite the growing undeniable evidence)He has so much to contend with!(then what the hell did he run for the presidency?)and more often than not, this particular excuse always ignores that he isn’t “fixing” anything—that is the problem—not that he confronts so much, rather that on a whole host of issues, he maintains course. And now it has evolved into the shattering of expectations line—with the conclusion that “it has always been that way”, when actually it has not always been that way. The world, and yes even the US has had a history of fine “movers and shakers”, so in fact, it is those forever seaching for the next excuse to cover their fallen heros who are the ones suffering from illusion that prevents everyone from standing in opposition.

Report this

By Shingo, October 15, 2009 at 6:07 am Link to this comment

Despising Obama isn’t going to achieve anything.  People got caught up in the hype of Obama, but even the best intentioned guy has no hope in the Washington machine, because it is geared to serve th einterests of a few. 

It has always been that way.

Report this

By RdV, October 15, 2009 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

Well, it seems that Obama is serving Republican interests as his top priority. Wall street and the Board room are in high gear with million dollar bonuses while Obama speculates about what “entitlements”, like medicare to cut to save money.
  I despise him and I am on the Left—and I am not alone, but you continue to obscure this truth by confining it to the ruse of partisan divide which only perpetrates the illusion of division while Obama pretty much serves the same interests as his Republican counterparts. His camapaign of “hope and change you can believe in” have been exposed as a pack of lies.

Report this

By Shingo, October 15, 2009 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

By the way, Inherit The Wind, that was beautiful to watch!

Report this

By Shingo, October 15, 2009 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

You are such a parody of the righ wing Adam.

“I’m a conservative and I love this Country.”

Wring Adam, you only loved this country when Bush was president.

“If you patsies in the left wing media would take the time to actually listen to Limbaugh or Beck you would understand that we conservatives are patriots who love this Country and our freedoms.”

Just consider the paradox of this statement.  Has it not occured to you that Limbaugh or Beck are part of the media, so how cna it be liberal?

It’s not like Beck and Limbaugh don’t get a chace to put foeward their opinions or are denied time to explain themselves.  The fact is, they have and they have been exposed as liars, political hacks, hypocrites and frauds.

Once in a while, they might make a congent point, but liek they say, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

Report this

By LYF, October 15, 2009 at 12:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

they don’t hate America, they hate the way America is becoming.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 14, 2009 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment

Re: Eugene

Quote:  The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.” (emphasis mine)

You got that right.  Soldier on.

Report this

By Ray Duray, October 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment

zurg,

You wrote: “As a 80s child, raised in a family which always voted Republican, and growing up admiring Reagan, I question does the Republican party really represent its ideals anymore? ”

I got you by three decades. I was born before that bastard Harry Truman could drag this nation into the Korean War. The truth is that neither party bears any resemblance to what they used to seem to represent.

In the case of “The Democracy” as we Jeffersonians would call the Democratic Party, it reached its apotheosis in the term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt when it truly seemed to be a compassionate party concerned about the welfare of the little people in the nation who had been so brutally harmed by the “banksters” and the other malefactors of great wealth (TR’s phrasing) who ruined the economy and saddled the common people with a great depression. The rich never suffered much from The Great Depression, and many prospered throughout. But Roosevelt gave The People hope. And beyond that, he gave them the CCC, the NRA, the BPA, the TVA and a lot of people got a paycheck. Compare that with the Slim Pickins of today, when Obama promises the “belief” and the “audacity” but not the paycheck. And now we know why most of us Big-D Democrats (I’m a Precinct Committe Person!) are growing increasingly disgruntled with what appears to be a corporate kleptocratic conspiracy to steal both political parties and the entire city of Washtington, D.C. from The People.

I’m sure you feel the same.

Report this

By Sepharad, October 14, 2009 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

Inherit—You’re right: the Faux Noise (I love that; your invention?) volk sounded like old newsreels from late ‘30s, early ‘40s Europe, in their intemperance and single-minded attack mode.

Somehow I ended up on an emailing list from Fox-types—maybe because of my Israel sites—and for the last couple months kept getting alarmed emails that alleged the UK was cutting Holocaust references out of their school curriculum because it was offensive to their Muslim populations. None of the Israeli groups I’m connected to or the sites I go on had ever mentioned such a thing, so I asked an old investigative reporter I used to team up with—a Scotsman who lives in the UK—to run this down. In a few weeks he told me it simply wasn’t happening, not anywhere. Lots of boycotts and academic exclusion measures against Israel, as usual, but nothing re history curriculum. He identified it as an urban legend invented by a non-Jewish American student who’d had unhappy experiences in England. So I exed out my friend’s name and sent his findings to all the idiots who had sent me the info hoping to find a friendly recipient, as well as to all of the Israli and Jewish-American sites and friends I could think of, in the interest of honest reporting and the need to check sources of such allegations. (Things are scary enough without spreading disinformation.)

I don’t much care what people think, or what they say or write, but to falsely invent or even wildly exaggerate some matter of alleged record is to kill the whole purpose of communication, the whole basis for a democracy or republic of any kind.

This is why I’m usually slower than perhaps I should be to make blanket statements about conservatives, liberals, you name it. But the kind of journalism Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are producing is simply entertaining propaganda. In fact, their “reporting” bears out that old soldiers’ saying: “No truth in the news; no news in the truth.”

Re Obama, maybe the right-wingers would be more comfortable if they could see POTUS’s Nobel as a sort of national-integrity-preemptive strike.

Report this

By Ray Duray, October 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

In every piece of propaganda there is a kernel of disinformation ensconced in a wrapper of sincere truthiness.

Here’s where Gene Robinson is trying to slip you the Mickey Finn: “Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach.”

I sincerely hope that anyone who has grown out of swaddling cloth can see through this preposterous claim.

Let’s look at life rationally, shall we? While Barack Obama seemingly dithers over how many troops to increase his committment to search-and-destroy missions on Afghani wedding celebrations, who steps up to the plate to hit a double for the NATO home team? Why, it’s the nearly blind Gordon Brown promising to send an additional 500 handsome Brits to the land that nearly executed an entire 17,000 strong contingent in 1842. I say nearly, because one Brit survived to walk out of the Kyber Pass to tell the tale to colonial lords in Delhi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Afghan_War

It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that Barack Obama and his PR handlers will be using Gordon Brown’s “hail fellow well met” white-man’s-burden schtick as a rallying cry to get another 40,000 U.S. cannon fodder specialists committed to chasing down muftis, hajis and pashtuns in the Hindu Kush.

What was this I heard about a Peace Prize? What’s that? Peace? What a foreign concept to the Empire and its Rocket’s Red Glare. What’s this about multilateralism? As close as Barack Obama comes to multilateralism is that he has two asscheeks, just like the rest of us.

Report this

By AFriend, October 14, 2009 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

I was simply addressing the trigger events of 2008. I agree with you on loose credit practices being the most significant cause. In the case of Fannie and Freddie -the trigger- credit practices in the housing market were mandated by the U.S. Congress. All under the watchful eyes of “regulation” and “oversight.” Today every home loan in America is charged a $40.00 fee to Fannie Mae.

With that said: The free market system has lifted more people out of poverty, illness and starvation than any monetary system in human history. In a world which has always seen its have and have not its the most humane system ever devised. One of the few that actually allows the penniless or destitute to build tangible wealth and, actually keep it, grow it, create more jobs and lift more humans out of poverty, illness and death.

Report this

By Sean01, October 14, 2009 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

The absolute beauty of Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize is the fact that it further disturbs the conservative world view. 

This disturbance of the force, if you will, is why Obama is such a threat to them and, indeed, why he is so treasured by the rest of us.

http://www.leftista.com/index.php/2009/10/the-birthers-zeitgeist/

Report this

By zurg, October 14, 2009 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As Americans we should be proud when our
president gets such a prestigious award
(even if premature). As a 80s child, raised
in a family which always voted Republican,
and growing up admiring Reagan, I question
does the Republican party really represent
its ideals anymore?

Report this

By Astonishing., October 14, 2009 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree 100% that it was bull that Obama won after 12 days of being in office. He was nominated based on potential and he hasn’t done anything to date. He has made a huge to-do list and decided he instead would spend four months hunting for a dog and bitching about sludge in his garden from Clinton’s presidency.

If a conservative had posted an article bashing liberals like in this one, it would start a riot. There’s a double standard. If you disagree with Obama, it’s not because he’s a democrat and you don’t believe in abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment,etc. It’s because you’re a racist.

I guess I am exactly what this article states. I hate my country because the president winning the nobel prize for no reason upset me. I want to see it destroyed and when I am kicked out for being such a terrible American for disagreeing, I dibs the nukes.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 14, 2009 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’sLand and berniem,

Thank you both for presenting evidence that there are Liberals on this forum that are not ashamed of being Liberals and saying things the way they really are.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie:

As a self-described anarchist, why are you arguing about public policy? By defiition, you disagree with all of it on the grounds that it was government who made or abolished a policy. Not that I disagreed with a word you said. I’m just curious. Is it merely, as you say, to “figure out what’s going to happen next?” What’s it matter?

Want to know what will happen next? Someone will be bought, they will feed us a bunch of shit we want to hear, and then someone will get screwed. Basically sums up the American experience in almost any context. I mean damn. If this were a tv show, it would have been canceled after the civil war…

Report this

By Turnplug23, October 14, 2009 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

Those unable to sire any children or maintain any sort of intimate relationship will often turn to drugs and hate filled rants against anybody who has the kind of life they can only dream of. Pity these sorts but do not take them into your home,they poison everything they touch.

Report this

By berniem, October 14, 2009 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

According to them, conservatives are the only ones who “love” America. What they hate are Americans, unless they’re white, male, “born agin’” christians, rich, and believe in “personal responsibility”, as in ” We’re not personally responsible for anything thats wrong in this country”. Conservatives are not about conserving anything. They are, however, hoarders of everything that they find to be of value not only to themselves, but to humankind as a whole. As a species, they believe that anyone unlike them is inferior and merits only what they deem necessary to “trickle” down thus assuaging their gossamer consciences.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment

ssl8jx,

As a fellow disabled vet let me be the first to say that I will not get sucked into your bullshit dick measuring contest of military experiences. Congratulations on your disability.

I do consider this a teachable moment, though. If you’re going to throw labels around, let’s get them straight, ok?

Here we go.

The VA is better classified as “communist” medicine. It’s managed and operated by employees of the federal government and is paid for by tax dollars—the same as you were when you were a member of the military. That is, unless they contract out a service to the private sector. Then it becomes “socialist” medicine.

You are free to refuse the “communist” medicine you recieve at the VA just as you were free to avoid the inherent “communism” of military service in the first place. You are free to refuse the “socialist” medicine of medicaid as well.

You are also free to take your chances with “capitalist” medicine by either paying for it yourself or taking your chances with the insurance industry. If you’re lucky, you’ll be covered. Most likely they’ll take your money unto you need something though at which time, you’ll be dropped from the rolls becaue you’re a disabled vet with a pre-exisiting condition. At that point (as you’re ona fixed income) you’ll be forced to take up a collection to pay for your medical bills or go into bankruptcy like many others in this country. Proceed with caution on this route, though. If you take up a collection, it quickly ventures into the realm of “socialist” medicine.

Of course if you’re a real “conservative,” I suggest you march down to your local church and get some of that “faith-based” medicine. Beware though. Churches are “communist” too. At least the ones that take donations and apply them for the good of the congregation—basically all of them.

There. Go forth and label “liberally” from this point hence.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 14, 2009 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment

Adam, October 14 at 11:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m a conservative and I love this Country.  What I hate is liberals who distort what we are all about.  If you patsies in the left wing media would take the time to actually listen to Limbaugh or Beck you would understand that we conservatives are patriots who love this Country and our freedoms.
***********************************************

Adam,

I’ve read the Constitution through and through more times than I can count.  The President, Congress and every soldier swears an oath to defend it.  That to me is the definition of patriotism.

Your pals at Fox Noise do everything possible to undermine that document, which is what makes America the idea into America the nation.  They don’t believe in the most fundamental right in the Constitution, the one that is in the body, not the amendments: Habeas Corpus.  They attack freedom of speech, calling for the EXECUTION as traitors of anyone who criticized George Bush (Ann Coulter-geist).  They attack the Separation Clause, demanding that Christianity be taught in our schools and the 10 Commandments and creches be placed on public land.

They attack the free press, while enjoying it.

They attack the right to a trial by jury, the right to be free from intimidation by police, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be given the charges against you, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to confront the evidence against you.

They attack the right of every adult citizen to vote, and worked hard to overcome the checks and balances of our government.

In fact, the ONLY right that “Conservatives” like you respect is the “right to keep and bear arms”.

You cannot love our country and love our freedoms and at the same time do EVERYTHING possible to undermine all of those freedoms, and defend that undermining of those freedoms.

It’s just that simple.  No “Conservative” ever defends a freedom (other than guns) without risking getting attacked en masse by other other “Conservatives” like you.  Ask Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins or even Chuck Grassley or John McCain.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 14, 2009 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:
‘No_Man’s_Land and Anarcissie,

We will disagree on current and historical events. I’m hoping my point in regards to bigotry is not lost, however.

The open and blatant small minded ignorance displayed in abundance in Mr. Robinson’s piece along with the many posts here, is quite disturbing.

If I were to continue the practice I would ask where all the open minded, all inclusive, kind and peaceful liberals are on this Web site. I was hoping against hope that more here would speak out against what we’re all seeing so much of.’

I’m an anarchist, so I can’t be blamed for the faults of liberals under some kind of collective responsibility.  Unless you think I don’t annoy them enough.

In regard to your disagreeing with my analysis of the recent financial debacle, I’d like to know your reasoning.  It seems pretty obvious to me that the continuous expansion of credit money in recent years would have to end in some kind of crash.  In fact it seemed obvious several years ago.  However, any reational criticism would improve my theories, and I would like to improve them so I can figure out what’s going to happen next.  At the moment, since Mr. O has basically continued Mr. B’s policies and made a huge effort to put things back the way they were, I expect another and worse crash in the not too distant future.  Last time, though, I was pretty sure the adjustable-rate mortgages would be the trip wire.  Now the landscape is littered with them.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

Conservative is a relative term, I am a fiscal conservative but a constitutional
liberal. I was a member of the Navy 1965-1977 and have been to a few wars
(three if you count the cold war and the six day war). I have been in the VA
system for many years and watched as the agent orange victims and the DU
victims tried to get coverage for the unseen wounds of war. You are right that
the system sucks but you are wrong about the cause, both parties are
responsible. You need to get away from words like liberal, conservative,
commie, patriot et cetera, they only lead to divisions that keep us from
accomplishing anything. Might I suggest some good reading material that is
online and free? It is “War is a racket”, it was written by Smedley Butler, the
only two time recipient of the medal of honor.

By ssl8jx, October 14 at 7:55 pm #

President Bush pushed for better care for veterans.

Report this

By ssl8jx, October 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

I guess I am just one of those America hating conservatives…Darn and I thought that the time I spent in basic training to become a member of the USAF (for those who are so liberal and feel that this country has no need of the military, that would be the United States Air Force), was just another “work-out” program. Heaven knows Micheal Moore does not feel the same way otherwise he would have joined a long time ago. They would have made him lose at least 100 pounds and wash his hair :( How many of you that are praising Mr. Obama for government run health care? I do it every day as I am a disabled veteran. Guess what, in socialized medicine you and YOUR CHILDREN are expendable…period end of story. If YOUR child is diagnosed with bone cancer they will be treated if the government feels it is necessary.  Trust me it is difficult to get government approval for certain care. President Bush pushed for better care for veterans. Also for those of us that are struggling, hey, Im good with my spouse going on Medicaid as we are on a fixed income, but you get to pay for it, so I plan to suck every penny out of the liberals that I can. Pay for my spouses insurance my butt, I dont make enough money, so I will let the rich (which includes the well to-do in Hollywood that wont do a movie for less than a 10 million) pay for my spouses medical bills. I plan on getting him on medicaid so enjoy paying his bills smileAnd we will make sure he has whatever tests and appointments (regardless of the cost to the taxpayer) that keep him healthy. Im sure that alone will make you sleep better at night smile. I do believe the last time I went to the hospital (I had to be stabilized prior to the 50 mile ambulance ride) the cost for a CAT scan, 1 liter of fluids, and some potassium was over $4000.00. Again, thank-you for wanting to pick up this bill smile

Go Air Force (and Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, and National Guard!!!)

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

stcfarms:

I stand corrected and I couldn’t agree with you more. There is only one party in this country, the Washngton DC party. I voted for neither of them.

Report this

By Jay, October 14, 2009 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Nobel committee does not speak for the world. Most of China, Russia, Iraq
and most of the Arab world was shocked that Obama was to recieve the prize.

To pretend that only Republicans questioned it is to close one’s eyes to the
world. Funny that people will complain mindlessly about how little America
knows about the outside world, but then when it fits their agenda, the same
people will pretend that America and western, industrialized Europe make up
the “rest of the world”.

This whole article is slimy hypocrisy. You are not fooling anyone. The real
reasons the liberals were unable to defeat bush in the last two elections is that
the entire left refused to take a clear and principled anti-war, anti-
interventionist position. Liberals don’t really want to stop using force to change
other countries. For this reason they are crushed under the internal
contradictions of their own philosophy even though they are much more
intelligent than Republicans. It is time the left took responsibility and brought
all of our troops home. Let’s stop killing in the name of Democracy before we
talk about peace prizes. The Democrats have had ample time to wind the war
down, they controlled congress long before Obama took office and they did
nothing. Do you really expect us to believe you Orwellian “War is peace” lies?

Report this

By UFO, October 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Conservatives Love America. Read the Constitution and look at what Conservatives stand for

Report this

By stcfarms, October 14, 2009 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

I am speaking of the hand that pulls the lever to vote for ‘the lesser of two
evils’. Both parties are equally guilty of making you a slave, by voting for one
of them you are choosing the crook that you believe will do the least damage. I
am armed and I am not advocating civil war, you make assumptions not in
evidence.

You seem to miss the point entirely, the middle would never have agreed to a
war without checking out the facts first. What is irrational is the assumption
that the democrats would not have started a war after 9/11. The morons were
screaming for revenge and politicians see profit in warfare.

By No_Man’s_Land, October 14 at 4:33 pm #

not feeling overly suicidal today, but thanks for the concern. and if you’re
worried about civil war, perhaps you should stop appeasing the armed
segment of society who apparently gets off on it. maybe they’ll settle for a
small, short revolution—in the spirit of compromise that is.

is there a middle ground when we are manipulated into an unecessary war
under false pretenses?

is it irrational to ask how it happened and to stand up and say never again?

where is the middle ground you seek? 50,000 dead instead of 100,000 (or
more)?

perhaps we should settle for a mere half of the population being without
healthcare?

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:

Point taken. Misunderstood what you were driving at. Perhaps historical amnesia is a better term than bigotry for a piece that is simply turning the tables on the most recent perepetrators of the scam.

You have to understand something, though. To many in this crowd, its like hearing the KKK cry about reverse racism when black people “lump all members of the KKK together.” (meant purely to hilight point. No personal comparison intended). Let’s be honest, the scenario sounds a lot like a Saturday Night Live skit.

The claim just rings hollow to us after the Bush years.

Report this

By AFriend, October 14, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land, October 14 at 3:26 pm #

“Surely you can recognize the ironic and facetious nature of his piece? He’s merely pointing out philosophical hypocrisy as defined by Rush, Sean, Bill, Glenn, Coulter, FoxNews, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. By their standards, they should be dixie-chicing each other at burn rallies.”

—-

My entire point is exactly that. You’re saying the unrepentant bigotry in Mr. Robinson’s peice is not what you see. You see truth in it. Conservatives are, somehow, different when in the role of opposition. Somehow more hypocritical. Somehow more obstructionist. Somehow nastier. I disagree.

Mr. Robinson’s piece is history repeating itself. He’s writing on issues that are always written and talked about months into every presidency. It never changes. Yet it’s always interesting to watch. It’s always treated as if Americans haven’t been here before, countless times. Go back and re-read the posts below. Go back and read the posts in 2000 and 2001. Look up articles from 1992-93.

I understand how some believe that the hypocrisy as defined by Rush, Sean, Bill, Glenn, Coulter, FoxNews, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, is somehow “different”. This belief, too, has been seen again and again. It simply always turns out to be wrong.

Report this

By Talon, October 14, 2009 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It never seems to amaze me how people get wound up over politics.  Does it surprise anyone that a very socialistic committee would award the Nobel to a socialistic person who really has done nothing to deserve the award.  To correct some points, The nominations for the Nobel were closed shortly after Obama was sworn into office.  Conservatives don’t hate America, some of them probably don’t like a guy surrounding himself with communists and socialists.  I think that for people to “hate” or even dislike someone for their politics is crazy.  It’s really easy to stand back and pick apart what any administration does when a person doesn’t have all of the information.  I for one don’t think Obama did anything to deserve this award, I think George W. Bush gets a bad rap because he is a crappy public speaker, but why is it that when Obama can’t continue without a teleprompter not may people comment on it.  I guess I want to add that we as a nation need to get back to the basics, you know the loser of the election is then made the VP not the way it is done now.  I also think that we as a nation need to stand up and tell our reps to stop the party politics and do what is right (based on what their constituants tell them).  While these are my opinions they may differ from all others.  I am glad for the constitution, but see attempts to sidestep it going on.  Ok i am done with my rant…

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

stcfarms:

“Then you will die by your own hand.”

not feeling overly suicidal today, but thanks for the concern. and if you’re worried about civil war, perhaps you should stop appeasing the armed segment of society who apparently gets off on it. maybe they’ll settle for a small, short revolution—in the spirit of compromise that is.

Report this

By Tantroo_McNally, October 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think most of the reasons the right wing are going
crazy over it is because this peace prize seems like
an attack on their president. Everyone who praises
it, including yourself, is saying. “Well he took us
away from Bush’s wrong policies”.

Sorry, but if the way to get an award is to “Be more
peaceful then Bush was.” A majority should get it.

I mean, did they give Hitler’s predecessor a peace
prize cause he wasn’t as bad?

I do congratulate Obama though, and am grateful that
he realizes that there were others far more deserving
of the award other then himself. And if there wasn’t,
I think the world is in a sad place. 

In essence the Nobel prize isn’t something you should
physically try for, you should do peace for peace’s
sake, for peace is a greater reward then any piece of
medal.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

i assume that is veiled reference to armed conflict and civil war?

Report this

By stcfarms, October 14, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Then you will die by your own hand.

By No_Man’s_Land, October 14 at 3:53 pm #

i just don’t see where there is room for middle ground in current American
politics.

Report this

By t, October 14, 2009 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OBAMA didn’t do crap to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.  He won the award after being in office 12 days.  That’s what’s wrong.  Limbaugh isn’t siding with the Taliban, quit making crap up.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

stcfarms:

had progressives spoken up like this in 2003, how many people do you think would be alive today?

is there a middle ground when we are manipulated into an unecessary war under false pretenses?

is it irrational to ask how it happened and to stand up and say never again?

where is the middle ground you seek? 50,000 dead instead of 100,000 (or more)?

perhaps we should settle for a mere half of the population being without healthcare?

not trying to be smartass. i just don’t see where there is room for middle ground in current American politics.

Report this

By The Real Deal, October 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow are liberals a mess!  Nothing but hyper emotional complaining and hipocrisy.  Priceless.

Report this

By stcfarms, October 14, 2009 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

It is the posts in this forum and not the mindless opinion piece that are so
interesting. The posts show just how successful the one paty government is at
the practice of divide and conquer. It is the extermists on both sides of the
aisle that prevent any useful dialog that might have solved the problems. It is
illogical for people from both sides of any issue to let the extremists call the
shots. If you are trying to start a civil war you are following the right path, if
you are trying to solve the problems then you might want to rethink some of
your partisan views. The solution to most issues lies halfway between the
extremes, an area that few of you are familiar with.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

AFriend:

Surely you can recognize the ironic and facetious nature of his piece? He’s merely pointing out philosophical hypocrisy as defined by Rush, Sean, Bill, Glenn, Coulter, FoxNews, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. By their standards, they should be dixie-chicing each other at burn rallies.

Report this

By Josh, October 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For a lot of Conservatives they do not even think Obama
is the President. There is a huge back lash against
this President, and people are trying to find ways to
make Obama out as the enemy.

Conservatives like *their* idea of the country, and
hate everything else. This isn’t news.

Report this

By AFriend, October 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land and Anarcissie,

We will disagree on current and historical events. I’m hoping my point in regards to bigotry is not lost, however.

The open and blatant small minded ignorance displayed in abundance in Mr. Robinson’s piece along with the many posts here, is quite disturbing.

If I were to continue the practice I would ask where all the open minded, all inclusive, kind and peaceful liberals are on this Web site. I was hoping against hope that more here would speak out against what we’re all seeing so much of.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Night Gaunt:

Good qualification. I stand corrected. Though I do credit him for spurring the Progressive era of the earlu 20th century.

Report this

By Spiritgirl, October 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

“In your thinking, so it appears, “conservative free market philosophy” is to blame for the financial crunch. In reality it was government intrusion into the free market system that put the entire globe where it is today.”

Hate to disagree with you, but you are dead wrong on that score.  The current crop of “Conservative free-market philosophy” that has included a no holds barred, no rules or regulations, winner take all philosophy is what is in play here.  And it is the American people black, white, latino, asian, that have been the losers in it all! 

When Reagan started his b.s. about getting “the government off of your back” - he was not talking to the “average American” - he was talking to big business, when he fired all of the striking Air Traffic Controllers - he signaled message to BIG BUSINESS that there is an all out war on the “average worker”!  What has been playing out ever since has been an all out war on “working Americans”! 

My issue with the rabid right, is that in denying reality - they are denying that the very people that they are putting into office are the very people that are dismantling the social safety net for ALL AMERICANS!  Americans produce nothing (but debt), all of it has been outsourced to places where they don’t have to pay them but .50 cents a day!  Those good paying jobs are being replaced with jobs that pay less than half of what the people were making! And yet those are the very people that want to regulate my womb, while negating the real issues and the Oligarchy that are destroying this nation! 

And while President Obama can’t do it alone, I feel that those who are loudly blathering against him are the real traitors to this nation for the Oligarchy that they are representing!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

T. Roosevelt isn’t easily classified. In the realm of trust busting and natural parks he was Progressive. But in other areas he was spot on Regressive. Separation of the ‘races,’ a white man must be married and have as many children as possible, Christianity taught in schools, wars and empire are good. One nation, one flag, one language and essentially one ‘race’ in charge. But Glenn Beck won’t mention those aspects of him as he continues to say that “Progressives are fascist” or is it “socialist” and are viaing to take over our republic?

Report this

By Spiritgirl, October 14, 2009 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

“In your thinking, so it appears, “conservative free market philosophy” is to blame for the financial crunch. In reality it was government intrusion into the free market system that put the entire globe where it is today.”

Hate to disagree with you, but you are dead wrong on that score.  The current crop of “Conservative free-market philosophy” that has included a no holds barred, no rules or regulations, winner take all philosophy is what is in play here.  And it is the American people black, white, latino, asian, that have been the losers in it all! 

When Reagan started his b.s. about getting “the government off of your back” - he was not talking to the “average American” - he was talking to big business, when he fired all of the striking Air Traffic Controllers - he signaled a message to BIG BUSINESS that there is an all out war on the “average worker”!  What has been playing out ever since has been an all out war on “working Americans” by the Oligarchy! 

My issue with the rabid right, is that in denying reality - they are denying that the very people that they are putting into office are the very people that are dismantling the social safety net for ALL AMERICANS, and allowing for rule by the Corporate Oligarchy over “WE THE PEOPLE”!  Americans produce nothing (but debt), all of it has been outsourced to places where they don’t have to pay them but .50 cents a day!  Those good paying jobs are being replaced with jobs that pay less than half of what the people were making! And yet those are the very people that want to regulate my womb, while negating the real issues and the Oligarchy that are destroying this nation! 

And while President Obama can’t do it alone, I feel that those who are loudly blathering against him are the real traitors to this nation for the Oligarchy that they are representing!

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

AFriend:

I will admit that I am bigoted insofar as I diametrcally oppose anyone or any movement who supports this morphed version of economic and social conservatism. I will do so until I am convinced that the conservative movement has learned something deeper than “we weren’t conservative enough” from the Bush years. To date, I detect no such introspection though. Only more fear-mongering via faux threats, now in the form of “death panels.”

Believe it or not, Lincoln, TR and Ike command a tremendous amount of respect from me. I would not classify them as ‘conservative’ under the this newly redfined version of the term though. If anything Lincoln and TR were leading progessives of their times while the Democratic party more closely reflected what today we call conservative. Eisenhower was a lone voice when he warned against the military industrial complex and we have just witnessed the impact of failing to heed that warning. He was also a staunch supporter of going after war profiteers. He credited Truman for “adding another 2 division to the fight” in his to do just that.

Your analysis of the economic crisis is a short sighted IMO. To gain real perspective, I argue that we have to look at long term trends. For example, during the 50’s and 60’s, unionization represented about 35% of the American workforce. Today that number is about 9%, largely due to Reagan. Concurrent with that trend has been a stagnation of income for the bottom 80% of Americans. As the CIA factbook states in its summary of the American economy:

“The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.”

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

The appeasement by Bill Clinton of the monied interests in DC, coupled with Republican pressure, also had a major impact. With that we got such reforms as NAFTA which brought us industrial flight. At the end of his administration, again at the strong behest of Republicans, we repealled the Glass-Steagall act, which kept commercial and investment banking seperated since the Great Depression. Later, we saw continued deregulation from the Bush administration through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. We also must consider that deregulation happens simply by failing to enforce current laws, as we have seen with the FDA and SEC for 10 years now.

At the height of both the Cold War and liberalism, a significant portion of the population was required to serve in the military. With that came such benefits as the GI Bill, VA home loans, and VA healthcare. Those benefits fueled the boom of post war America. Today, less than 1% of the population gets those benefits. We have since replaced those benefits with college loans, adjustable mortgages, and health insurance. Its no wonder our economy is tanking. We’re behind the 8 ball at earliest part of our professional lives.

At the epicenter of all of this is the American Food supply. It is the one common denominator among healthcare, climate change, and the economy. I would urge you to watch this 20 min interview at the link below, which IMO has both progressive and conservative elements to it. Its a good summary of the impact of the current food system. Again, brought on largely by a failure to regulate, inappropriate subsidies, market industrialization, and genetic engineering—all of which are fueld by the desire maximize profits over nutrition and health. The net effect is a food supply where $1 dollar now buys more in junkfood calories than it will in a healthy alternative.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/omnivores_dilemma_author_michael_pollans_new

Best Regards

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 14, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

AFriend:
’... The true trouble began in the summer of 2008 with the housing market and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two heavily regulated quasi-governmental agencies, unable to meet their obligations after regulations, specifically designed to overextend bad lending practices, fell apart. ...’

The collapse of the housing and equities bubbles in 2008 were the inevitable outcome of long-term monetary policies, especially the cheap credit provided by Greenspan, which in effect printed money for the rich.  However, the overall policy of keeping things going with funny money goes back long before that.  For instance, you may recall that in the 1987 stock market crash, the Fed told the specialists that they would lend them as much money as they needed to keep prices from cratering.  In other words, the game was changed into one in which the moneyed class as a whole could not lose.  If they screwed up, they would simply be given more freshly-printed money, in effect taxing all those with savings accounts and fixed incomes—the small-timers—to bail them out.  This has been the policy through Republican and Democratic administrations since then, the grotesque bailouts of the last few years being merely the latest edition.  As a result, much of the value of the equities, housing and other markets is gaseous.  The money is either entirely mythical, or if it exists in some actual form, it can’t be gotten out and turned into material value—there simply are not enough labor, goods and services, nor any possibility of producing them, to back it up.

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook