Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 28, 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


Boom-or-Doom Riddle for Nuclear Industry
Truthdigger of the Week: Yuval Diskin




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Seven Republican Dwarfs

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

Posted on Jun 15, 2011
AP / Jim Cole

At Monday night’s debate in Manchester, N.H., are, from left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and businessman Herman Cain.

By Robert Scheer

They assumed the stance of the Seven Dwarfs, not as a matter of physical but rather intellectual stature. Not one of the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination who debated Monday night rose to a point of seriousness in addressing the nation’s grievous problems. Instead, they ever so playfully thumbed their collective noses at any possible meaningful government reaction to the mess that we are in. It was Herbert Hoover warmed over, leaving Barack Obama secure in the mantle of FDR whether he deserves that tribute or not.

Obama, who has been inconsistent and weak in reining in the Wall Street greed that got us into this deep economic morass, is now under no pressure from the opposition to improve his performance. The Republican knee-jerk reaction—government bad, big business great, and don’t dare say that the Wall Street scoundrels who created this crisis need a timeout—gets Obama off the hook from legitimate criticism he needs to hear. As The Wall Street Journal headlined the non-debate: “Candidates Run Against Regulation.”

It’s as if the sound government regulation of the financial industry implemented in response to the Great Depression—not its polar opposite, the radical deregulation fueled by Republican free market zealots—was the source of our banking meltdown. 

How dare these Republican candidates en masse ignore the truth that it was precisely the legislation that their party pushed through Congress, and that Democrat Bill Clinton shamefully endorsed, that launched the era of unregulated credit default swaps and mortgage-based securities that came close to destroying the entire economy. The failed policies involved are the cause of the 50 percent run-up of the national debt, 9.1 percent unemployment, an all-time high in poverty and the prospect of 50 million people being driven from their homes.

The Republican debate dashed any expectation that some populist candidate would rise from that side of the aisle, and in an honest way tap into voter resentment over the deep hurt that the Wall Street superrich have put on ordinary Americans. Instead, the candidates made regulation the enemy, rather than the misdeeds that responsible legislation is intended to curtail. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
And their target was not just legislation to control the financial community. Indeed they offered, to a person, an across-the-board assault on the very idea of the power of the government being used in a forthright way to protect the rights of the individual citizen in any arena. As The Wall Street Journal summarized the New Hampshire debate:

“Republican presidential hopefuls on Monday pressed for the dismantling of government regulations drawn up over 40 years, using a candidates’ debate here to call for the scaling back or elimination of environmental, labor, financial and health-care rules.”

The stakes in the next election couldn’t be more important, and the danger for Obama and the country is that he might continue his practice of compromising instead of courageously challenging entrenched corporate power. If the choice is between him and any one of the Seven Dwarfs, it will be no contest as to who is the lesser evil. If Mitt Romney, the current front-runner by a wide margin for the GOP nomination, represents the best chance the Republicans have of putting up a sensible leader, Obama will be under no stress to improve his performance. Romney won’t even defend the very minor health care reforms that the Republicans deride as “Obamacare,” even though those reforms are based on a state program Romney championed when he was governor of Massachusetts. 

The only candidate who has had the temerity to concede that the Republican vision of health care is “right-wing social engineering” was Newt Gingrich, and he has been backing away from that assertion ever since he made it in May. At Monday’s debate, Gingrich felt the need to balance that earlier bit of reason with an absurd call for abolishing the National Labor Relations Board, as if it is the unbridled power of trade unions rather the mammoth corporations that is responsible for the downsizing and outsourcing of once well-paid American jobs.

The smug arrogance of these Republican candidates, preening with their concern for the masses of Americans oppressed by the chains of Social Security, minimal rights to health care, and environmental protection, leaves Obama as the only serious adult in the room. These folks even want to reverse the Sarbanes-Oxley law, designed to prevent the accounting fraud associated with the collapses of Enron and WorldCom that cost so many their jobs and savings.

With the president facing opponents such as these, the danger is that our national politics will once again be traumatized by a lesser-evilism, in which Obama will be given a free ride relieved of the pressure to perform better in dealing with an economy that is in deep trouble. It would be all too easy for him to make the case that he inherited rather than created the economic debacle, and that his palliatives, including the stimulus and mild regulation, may have not solved the problem but it would be a lot worse if the do-nothingness—that traditional bane of the GOP—had been the order of the day. 

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s new book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.

 

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: War on Drugs: Fast, Furious and Fueled by the U.S.

Next item: Here We Go Again: Reform in California



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.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 22, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

My conscience must agree with you, BR549 and the others who are
resisting the oil extraction projects.  If what you say is true, we
are in for it with the Republican-backed American oil cartels (oil
corporations combined with Wall Street financing!) 

We shall have to take some initiative but I do not know what could
possibly work.  I’ve no time to piss in the wind or simply spin wheels
and waste campaign money.  I’ve argued before that it would be
herculean to create a third party, and besides no one in the public
arena today is acceptable to me.  Never a Republican and most of
the Democrats are spineless AHs. The situation is dismal but I keep
hoping some scintillating with a liberal mind personage will show up. 
Pollyanna as it might seem, we need some rational and caring (the two
are not mutually exclusive) charismatic political type who could lead the
flounders (I see myself along with all the others who have little to no
power as flounders, you know, eyes on top but so what?!)  I am willing
to listen to any reasonable plan.  And I do mean reasonable.  Not
interested in any anarchistic action!  My eyes and ears are open.  I am
going to start an emailing campaign to liberal news journalists like
Cenk Uyugar et al.  At least they will know my concerns.  Maybe a
coalition of progressives sending a passel of emails could make some
statement that would be noticed????

Report this

By ardee, June 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment

Cliff

You might have noticed that I said the extraction from the shale is fairly new ( and thus expensive)but I also said that I expected rapid growth in the technology.  By that I meant the cost would diminish rapidly.  I didn’t say anything about the environment because I am sure everyone realizes that the environment is the least concern of the profit takers.

There is a very good reason why the oil industry has cherry picked all the light,sweet crude in the world up to now. Ease of extraction which, by the by, has not stopped price fixing and rising costs of oil to the consumers.

Now that said “easily obtainable” stuff is running out, and while there is certainly some left , Saudi oil fields for one such, the demand for oil not only unabated but rising as former third world nations industrialize, the heavy oil, high sulphur content making for expensive refining and the aforementioned shale oil starts to look more attractive regardless of expense. After all, government subsidies ( good old corporate welfare) are available.

Shale oil extraction is not a “new” idea by the by , the technology has existed for many decades in fact. The terrible environmental toll and the very high costs have made it a source of last resort. As to reduced cost, well I cannot predict the future technologies we may invent only deal with what is now.

And don’t think for a minute that those profit takers will continue pursuing an investment that consistently returns nothing but losses.  The environment they don’t care about.  Profit they do.

Who said anything about oil company losses. I only deal with the effect upon our poor little blue globe. The oil folk own a government or five, thus they worry little about revenues.

The real conversation, and the damage shale oil and gas extraction does to the water table, the land itself as well, is a side bar to that discussion, is why are we not seeking an end to oil dependency? How short sighted can we all be? Oil is not only a finite resource but a polluting one as well.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 22, 2011 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Cliff and Shen,

The whole concept of fracking would make any sane person vomit. The substrate has carefully balanced our resources over many eons by allowing for the pooling of subterranean aquifers, and also of fossil fuel reserves. To suggest that fracturing the “walls” between these resources would not risk contaminating each other is insane. It’s like the centuries old Appalachian water wells that became undrinkable once the oil and gas companies decided to do their thing even miles away. To them, it is all logistics and actuarials, with no regard for the environment.

As far as the Canadian oil sands, they must use incredible amounts of fuel to heat up those sands to release the oil. All that heat is just more to add to the fire of AGW, although I’ve already stated my position on that. Gore can kiss my ass, but I still think we, as co-residents on this spinning orb, should be taking greater measures of intelligent stewardship, and that doesn’t mean any one group gets to grow richer at the expense of another.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, June 22, 2011 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

ardee

I did read the entire thing.  And yes it is expensive and may be damaging to the environment.  I agree with you.

You might have noticed that I said the extraction from the shale is fairly new ( and thus expensive)but I also said that I expected rapid growth in the technology.  By that I meant the cost would diminish rapidly.  I didn’t say anything about the environment because I am sure everyone realizes that the environment is the least concern of the profit takers.

And don’t think for a minute that those profit takers will continue pursuing an investment that consistently returns nothing but losses.  The environment they don’t care about.  Profit they do.

Someone mentioned fracking, the extraction of Natural Gas from shale.  When we mention destruction to the environment from shale energy sources, why don’t we think about strip mining, that goes on all over the U S and will definitely be more destructive to the environment than shale recovery will ever be.  But we have somehow just lived with it, haven’t we?  Seems to me we use strip mining in the recovery of Coal, Copper, Gold, and a host of other minerals - but guess what - little to no outcry.

Any ideas why not?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Having a little time this afternoon to tie off some loose TD ends,
Markus, you are most welcome. There is no pretense here that I
know everything.  I know very little about the shale oil extraction,
only what has been reported here and there on TV and in printed
media both paper and online, then what seems a logical way to
proceed.  Ardee and a couple of others seem to know a lot more. 
From his many posts here and there, Ardee appears to be among
those sincerely committed to preserving the environment.  On this
particular issue, I consider myself among the ignorant masses,
interested in saving our planet and ourselves at the same time but not
knowing enough to do much.  We should somehow become informed of
what we the people can do other than contacting our mostly inattentive
politicians.  I usually sign petitions toward a better world for the people
and the earth, that come several times a day in the emails.  I learned we
only moved to petroleum products when the premium on whale blubber
oil was leading to extinction of the whales.  There is much we do not
know.

I agree with your sentiments and those who would like to see more
investigation into the possibility.  It seems on the surface that it is a
viable possibility to reduce the dependency on imported oil.  But as you
say, not if it involves ruining our world or us in the process.  I think
most of us are interested in saving the world for the common people. 
Not for the pocketbooks of the corporate and already rich who want
only to keep their numbers small.  It is that much more for them.  I
cannot tell if what David J. Cyr says is the truth.  It is a tale but I do not
know what are the credentials of who is telling it or what is the
verification.  He has not given any references that can be checked out
for his personal experience. We shouldn’t have to go chasing resources
for his claims.  Those who know, ought to speak out.

Report this

By Markus, June 22, 2011 at 11:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Shenonymous…..Thank you for your last Post Jun 22 9:30AM.  I think you
explained to Ardee who we really are.  But I must ask, what is a Liberal and a
Conservative called, besides confused?  At times, I take Ardees side when he’s not
wearing Horse Blinders and other times I side with You and BR549. I try to see
things for what they are and not closed minded or one sided.  I agree with the
Extraction of Oil Shale but only if the environment isn’t at risk.  When OBama was
a Senator he Ear Marked a Bush Bill (MORE WAR MONEY) FOR $400K TO PUT A
BARRIER IN THE CHICAGO RIVER to keep Asian Carp from getting into the Great
Lakes.  The repukes were against the barrier because of Corporate greed.  The Ear
Mark has saved Lake Michigan so far.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 22, 2011 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

A “moratorium” is merely a temporary public sedating pause in permitting; a tactic frequently used by liberal politicians when their liberal constituents get upset about what they voted for possibly coming into their own backyards.

I live in the Catskill Mountains, within a small area that’s likely the most well protected environmentally in the whole of the US. Because the City of Thieves takes water from here, it imposes an additional layer of strict regulation and patrols the portion of upstate NY designated as being the “NYC Watershed” area.

When the fracking extraction industry came to Iraqify NY, the infestation of NYC transplant liberals living here in the designated “NYC Watershed” area, who had waged a raging revolt a few years earlier over the possibility of ever seeing any wind turbines in their viewshed, weren’t much concerned about the small farmers made poor by their corporate party’s Ag Dept. policies desperately signing shale gas leases in the massive rural area from the western edge of the Catskills all the way across NY to Lake Erie, because (D) liberals here were confident that fracking wouldn’t come here, into their backyard that’s been so long special protected by the City of Thieves.

However, when the NY Department of “Environmental” Conservation that’s controlled by its Mineral Resources Division made a determination (consistent with NY Constitutional law) and announced that it could not ban fracking in the “NYC Watershed” while permitting it in all the other watersheds, **THEN** the liberals here reacted with rage.

And then suddenly the liberal divisions of the corporate media in NYC, which had callously participated in a news blackout on fracking during the decades it experimentally ravaged the western states, started feverishly reporting upon the reality of the hazards that weren’t so very hazardous when NYC’s affluent liberals didn’t think their 2nd home backyards and water taken might be laid waste too.

Liberals habitually corporate party (D) vote to fuck “little” people everywhere on this planet, then get outraged when they get fucked by their own votes.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 22, 2011 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

It is a matter of opinion which political ideologues are more
dimwitted and which are evil and disingenuous.  As a liberal, it
is my opinion that you mischaracterize liberals.  If you said classic
liberals I would agree with you since they are what we now call
libertarians.  Republicans veil themselves hypocritically in their
religion to pretend to care about the citizenry when they in fact
care only about their own strata’s investments and pocketbooks. 
Liberals are always, as a political position, on the side of the
people, it is the conservatives who are not.  I refer you to the Ten
Commandments of the Republican Party, posted June 16 at 4:55am.

Also from Utah, the Denver Posts reports “Orrin Hatch , the powerful
Republican senator from Utah, who accused Democratic Senate
candidate Mark Udall of siding with “an elite, anti-oil crowd” by helping
impose a moratorium on commercial leasing regulations for the shale
deposits. (Utah is one of three Western states with oil-shale reserves.)” 
The article is worth reading.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10220108

The Republicans have focused on a year-long moratorium on
commercial leasing regulations for oil shale that was slipped into a
spending bill last year by two Colorado Democrats, Udall in the House
and Ken Salazar in the Senate. Also Democrat Colorado Governor, Bill
Ritter, strongly supports the moratorium.  Moreover, the oil companies
themselves have been hesitant to actually engage in pursuing the
extraction technology, due to fear of public perception of their
insensitivity to environmental issues, as per Tracy Boyd, a Shell
spokesman

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 22, 2011 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Dim witted conservatives and Republicans are the obvious lesser evil that wouldn’t be so insurmountable if intelligent liberals weren’t always supporting their corporate party partners, the devious greater evil Democrats.

It is the crafty and ever disingenuous liberals who ensure that evil always wins.

Liberals pretend to oppose evil, while they strive to perfect it.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 22, 2011 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

It might be a criticism, David J. Cyr, but yours is a planned one-
sided criticism, as you fail to mention the Republican conservatives
who also are supporting such oil recovery technology, i.e., Bob
Bennett of Utah, for instance.  It is deceptive to withhold such
information.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 22, 2011 at 6:28 am Link to this comment

In my post here, I referred to the liberals “here” (on this thread) who were getting excited about the prospect of shale oil allowing the Age of Oil to continue for hundreds of years… which, if attempted will result in hastening human extinction.

However, liberal “environmental” organizations, like the NRDC (founded with petroleum foundation funding), are aggressively seeking to maintain fossil-fuel dependence, with the concept of using shale gas as a “bridge fuel” to energy independence.

The Un-Clean and Un-Natural Side of Natural Gas:

http://www.un-naturalgas.org/Un-Natural_Natural_Gas-090129.pdf

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 22, 2011 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

It is absurd to claim as does David J. Cyr that “liberals” are expecting
to continue fossil fuel dependency.  Republicans drive cars, big cars,
gas guzzling cars and Republican corporations use oil to run their
factories.  WP source: Since the 1940s, agricultural productivity has
increased dramatically, due largely to the increased use of energy-
intensive mechanization, fertilizers and pesticides. Nearly all
pesticides and many fertilizers are made from oil. In the United
States in 2007 about 70% of petroleum was used for transportation
(e.g. petrol, diesel, jet fuel), 24% by industry (e.g. production of plastics),
5% for residential and commercial uses, and 2% for electricity production. 
Outside of the US, a higher proportion of petroleum tends to be used for
electricity.

It is not a question of stopping the use of gasoline.  It is not going
to happen just like that!  But it is a question of discontinuing as much
as possible where a personal boycott would turn into a society-wide
boycott.  Even a day where no one who gives a flying fig drove a linear
foot! I don’t know if that would be counterproductive.  It is a
complicated problem.  It needs simplified by those who know.  The
Wikipedia article updated June 19, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry#Water_management
sheds light on the ramifications in plain language terms.  There is more than the safety of water
at issue.  There is disposal of mining waste, air pollution of particulate matter, and greenhouse
gas emissions.  But as David J. Cyr also notes the cost of shale oil extracting could exceed the
financial return of marketing the product.  Where is the Wall Street logic in proceeding with the
plan?  I mean isn’t it Wall Street that calls all the shots (uh, Republican-side economics).

Corporations stand to make billions while poisoning the water supply, ravaging the land with
waste, choking us with dirty air, and poisoning the air we breathe.  Ought we the people stand for
another such corporate rape?  Isn’t this wrong thinking? 

I just received an email that Shell Oil is planning for 10 new Arctic oil wells and the Alaskan
Wilderness League has published reasons why this is a bad idea.  How are ordinary citizens to
know who is right?  I wish we did not need oil but as the old saying goes, if a frog had wings….

Report this

By ardee, June 22, 2011 at 3:01 am Link to this comment

Cliff Carson, June 21 at 4:40 pm

Please continue to read until you come to the part where it explains that the extraction of shale oil is an expensive and extremely damaging process, destroying the land and water for miles around.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 21, 2011 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

Indeed, Markus, I am of the fairer gender.  I prefer intelligent
discussion without rancor to vitriolic debate, though I am known
to never shrink from a personal attack.  However that might be,
emotionally critical debate does not add much to the realm of
knowledge.

Obviously and as usual the seven dwarfs want only to keep the oil
corporations happy!  I am interested, and I would think most middle
income Americans are intently interested in the conversation here
about whether American shale oil recovery is a viable alternative to
what we now have, being thralls to the Middle East oil cartels.  It ought
not to be a bitter contest of who here has the truth as there appears to
be a difference of opinion.  The result if it keeps going this way, really
impedes a viable solution.  I would suppose that the higher goal is
finding a solution?

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

The myth believing liberals here who are expecting to continue fossil-fuel dependency, by ripping the last remnants of oil and gas from stone and tar sands, need to learn what energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is… and consider whether using more energy to get less energy out is worth not having any water left to drink, and not having a human habitable planet. Shale oil & gas extraction is way beyond insane… proof positive of the imminent collapse of the human species that is unfit to survive itself.

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

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this

By Cliff Carson, June 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

I hope this don’t turn into a double post but I was typing and suddenly it was all gone.  I went Googling until I got into the actual Rand Report.  So thought I would comment.
What I have below is an excerpt from the Rand Report.  Also I went to the Snopes link provided and found that the estimate of 3.6 Billion Barrels noted there was talking about was “Recoverable by current Technology”.  Since Shale oil extraction is in its infancy I expect rapid technology growth and when all is said and done, I expect the Rand estimate to be closer to the truth than the other reports.

The Rand Report Excerpt:

“The term oil shale generally refers to any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated.
To obtain oil from oil shale, the shale must be heated and resultant liquid must be
captured. This process is called retorting, and the vessel in which retorting takes place
is known as a retort.
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation,
which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil
resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion
barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale
resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower
bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to
know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our
estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per
day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels
of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.”

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

Markus,
I’m not positive but Shen might be of the fairer gender. Maybe that secret will be divulged to us. Either way, he or she (I’ll put my bet on the “she”) would a formidable opponent in any debate scenario. I never joined the debate society when in school, probably because I would have clammed up and gotten my ass kicked from here to Sheboygan.

Not to worry though, from what I have heard, the Williston Valley reserves supposedly contain a huge amount of Sweet Amber Crude, which is almost ready to put in your car and fairly close to the surface (3,000 ft?). What the globalists are doing is posturing to have everyone fight over the remaining small oil fields so that when the supply runs out, they will have a near virtual monopoly on the oil supply.

Yeah, it would be nice to get together for a drink and hash out the world’s problems. First round’s on me. After a few drinks, I turn into a teddy bear.  :o)

Report this

By Markus, June 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To BR549 AND SHENONYMOUS….First I’d like to apologize to BR549 for my lack of
investigating all the facts about THE BAKKEN AREA OIL RESERVES.  Thanks to
Shenonymous and the Snopes that he referred me to look at.  I must say with
regrets that I was fooled by the 2008 E-mail thats been floating the internet. 
Someone likes to tell HALF THE TRUTH and not the whole truth.  Sorry again
BR549 and thanks Shenonymous.  I wished I knew more about you two!  It would
be interesting to sit and talk with both of you.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 21, 2011 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

@ markus, June 20 at 8:29 pm

I never said, “the world”, I had said “on the continent”; i.e. Africa.

BR549, June 17 at 12:39 pm ....... “Might it be because Libya has the largest oil and water reserves on the continent?”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 21, 2011 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

I was very interested in your post markus, about the Dakota/Montana
oil formation recovery program. I visited the site you posted and read
it with much amazement. But a further google search just to get more
information on shale oil recovery elsewhere turned up the following
Snopes investigation:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp
which was just as informative.  You might take a look at it too.

Report this

By markus, June 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BR549…....I enjoy reading your manny comments the you Post.  Your Verbiage of
mostly 17th century Latin words I have to look up in the dictionary.  Good for me,
since I’m dyslexic and barely passed English.  I find Ardee, Shenonymous and a few
others interesting too, but David J. CYR, really has his head half way up his butt.  I
too WAS a Repuke till Moron Jr. came along.  To BR549, you made a comment
about the Largest Oil Reserve in the world being The Middle East.  I regret that you
and many others are dead wrong on that and I was too till recently learning about
The Bakken area in The Dakotas and Montana.  Yea, thats right!  Right here in the
good old USA.  Read the report on WWW. USGS.GOV/newsroom/article.asp?
ID=1911.  There is enough OIL there to support the USA for 2000 years.  Maybe
OPEC and the oil Companies are LOBBYING TO KEEP IT FROM US.  It would cost
only $16 a barrel instead of $100+.

Report this

By radson, June 20, 2011 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

This is not a run up for the highest office in the land ;this is an exercise in genuflection ;the lower that one can bow and grovel the better chance one has of becoming the next
corporate Vidkum Quisling.Just look what Prez. Obama turned into;the same black man who thinks he’s Irish only because the Queen went there first -to apologize -believe it
or not ;hell Mr. Prez . next time you go to Ireland bring a big bag of potatoes.First they sent a monkey in outer space and then they sent one to the White House ;I am referring to
Dubya of course although some of you may be thinking otherwise.Actually I am surprised that Winfrey Oprah isn’t in the running she would be a hands down favorite and probably would win by a landslide -seven dwarfs and Snow Black.Anyway what the hell is going to change in Washington with the 2012 election ;actually quite a bit .First of all the middle class
is going to be wrecked ,the unions are going to be wrecked ,social security will be less secure ,healthcare ,well that’s already wrecked ,unemployment is going to rise -after all the US is looking for a few good men.Libya is going to be wrecked ,forget about peace between Israel and the Palestinians (business is too damn good) and Barack already decided to Veto the Palestinian question of Statehood ,the Color in Syria is red and will turn into a bright Red as time passes ,the QE3 will be sailing towards China -a game of monopoly
anyone-,Japan will suffer the debilitating effects of modern technology along with American citizens on the West Coast ,the South Koreans are going to become even more trigger
happy and America is going to try to buddy up with the Vietnamese ,because the Chinese are drilling for oil off their coast ,agent orange apparently causes amnesia.So folks pick
your dwarf and jubilate.

cheers

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 20, 2011 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

diamond, June 19 at 12:07 am
“.... nearly eighty percent of Americans want universal health care introduced.”

Yes, but at least the intelligent ones recognize when they’re getting shafted and need to buy a 55 gal drum of Vaseline. As long as politicians keep selling what THEY call health care and continue to package it with all their worthless pork projects, “health care” will continue to be a four letter word. Whatever happened to voting on an issue solely on its own merits?

Report this

By TAO Walker, June 20, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

If, as “diamond” asserts below, “....nearly eighty percent of Americans want
universal healthcare introduced,” what, exactly, is keeping them from just getting
altogether over their “individual”-ized sickening “self,” getting ORGANized ALL
TOGETHER NOW as Natural Persons in Living Human Communities within The
Whole Living Arrangement of our Mother Earth, and taking-care-of one-anothers’
Health and other Living needs?

Thats NOT a merely ‘rhetorical’ question, either.

HokaHey!

Report this

By diamond, June 19, 2011 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

“Ron Paul and the other Republicans in Congress are believers in Ayn Rand’s cold hearted sociopathic philosophy. Ron Paul may not consider his policies to be cold hearted but that is exactly what they will be. Ron Paul apparently believes the poor and chronically ill will be given free medical care by Doctors, Hospitals, and suppliers of pharmaceuticals, and that their illness will not impoverish, or further impoverish, them. Apparently Ron Paul longs for the good old days.”

If Ron Paul believes that, he’s an imbecile. The biggest cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bankruptcy, in other words not being able to pay your medical bills and these aren’t poor, uninsured people we’re talking about. They are the well-off and insured. A long term chronic illness can still see them living in their cars, jobless, uninsured and bankrupt. If those are the good old days then hand me that chicken that Mike Huckabee claimed was how doctors were paid in ‘the good old days’. With a chicken. He thought this was great.

Noam Chomsky told an amusing story in ‘Imperial Ambitions’ about a survey some worthies were doing on hospitals in which they compared a hospital in Boston with one in Toronto in Canada. In Toronto they asked to see the billing department. No one knew where it was and when they found it, it was a tiny office in the basement mostly used by Americans who were in Canada for treatment. In Boston the billing department took up an entire floor of the hospital. If you ever wondered why medical costs are so astronomical in America (and still rising) it’s because it costs so much to run all those private health insurance companies and billing departments and there is no public option to provide competition to the private sector and keep costs down.

I refuse to believe that Ron Paul is SUCH an imbecile that he doesn’t know this. He probably, like most libertarians, believes that giving people universal health cover with make them morally flabby. You know, the same way they burned all those ‘heretics’ to save their souls. Stay away from this man: he is a fanatic and fanatics do ghastly things to ordinary people. The anti-war stance is just to confuse people so they don’t see all the other things he wants to do - and not do. And he can’t claim that his beliefs on health care are the will of the people: nearly eighty percent of Americans want universal health care introduced.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 18, 2011 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Whenever the corporate party’s devious Democrats have enough of their Republican partners present to crudely get done whatever the Market-State has directed the corporate state of America’s legislators to do, then you can count on seeing lots of Democrats voting in a manner that seems to appear like they might care about people.

The actual measure of what Democrats are is only truly revealed when Democrats have the great misfortune to have full control of government.

Democrats don’t do the good they could when they can…
because they’ve no intention to.

“I’m hoping he [Obama] breaks his campaign promises.”

— Michael Moore (Democracy Now! interview, on October 31, 2008)

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 18, 2011 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

JD,
I hate to break this to you but there wasn’t any homework assignment, (good job though), and I wasn’t discussing the legislators’ stances, I was noting the presidential candidates’ stances for 2008. Coming up to elections, we rarely see any meaningful debates about congressional and senate races because the average voter is taught by the media to salivate over POTUS.

And so what if a gazillion percent more Dem legislators voted against NAFTA than Reps; no matter what gets voted on, and no matter who has control of Congress, we always seem to go further in the shit hole.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 18, 2011 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Any politician can say anything they want, what they really believe is usually hidden by the political wind sock blowing at the time.  We have seen that over and over until after the election is over. 

One additional thing I do not like about Ron Paul is his anti abortion stance, which seems to be requiring all kinds of regulations in the Red States, with their anti voters rights, so what does Ron Paul say about this?

Anthony Weaienr had more integrity in his third member than any being displayed by the lying Republication Candidates.

By the way, I thought Paul was a libertarian, which seems to be the Republican courting theme for now?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, June 18, 2011 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

By BR549, June 18 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

“Ron Paul was one of the ONLY candidates opposed to NAFTA back when it counted. And except for Gravel, McKinney, Nader, Barr, Kucinich, Baldwin, Barr and (maybe one or two others), who also opposed it, the rest of the political prostitutes all had their boarding passes on the globalist gravy train.”

**************************************************

Democrats in the Senate who voted against NAFTA, when it counted:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Exon (D-NE)
Feingold (D-WI)  Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Heflin (D-AL)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Mikulski (D-MD)  Moynihan (D-NY)
Reid (D-NV)
Riegle (D-MI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Shelby (D-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA)

9 Republicans in the Senate voted against NAFTA.

In the House of Representatives 156 Democrats voted against NAFTA, when it counted, a ratio of 3 to 2 against. 43 Republicans voted against NAFTA a ratio of 3 to 1 in favor.

People here on truthdig constantly distort political reality, out of ignorance, or a desire to obcure the very real dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans.

Ron Paul joined a large contingent of Democrats who voted in favor of limiting our involvement in Afghanistan.

It’s my belief that Ron Paul is not opposed to these wars for humanitarian or moral reasons, but because of ideological anti government reasons. Ron Paul’s economic philosophy will remove all government regulation of business.

Ron Paul and the other Republicans in Congress are believers in Ayn Rand’s cold hearted sociopathic philosophy. Ron Paul may not consider his policies to be cold hearted but that is exactly what they will be. Ron Paul apparently believes the poor and chronically ill will be given free medical care by Doctors, Hospitals, and suppliers of pharmaceuticals, and that their illness will not impoverish, or further impoverish, them. Apparently Ron Paul longs for the good old days.

“Public health measures are credited with much of the recent increase in life expectancy. During the 20th century, the average lifespan in the United States increased by more than 30 years, of which 25 years can be attributed to advances in public health.”

Ron Paul is an absolute believer in total free trade, but he opposes NAFTA because NAFTA contains some government regulation of trade. Ron Paul is an ideological extremist.

I could say more, but it would be inflammatory, and less than civil.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 18, 2011 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul was one of the ONLY candidates opposed to NAFTA back when it counted. And except for Gravel, McKinney, Nader, Barr, Kucinich, Baldwin, Barr and (maybe one or two others), who also opposed it, the rest of the political prostitutes all had their boarding passes on the globalist gravy train.

Typically, while all those other candidates were busy talking up our “obligations” to these “trade agreements”, in a near total disregard to our Constitution, the above mentioned candidates were standing by that document as the others were busy selling it out. Even during the Democrat Party debates, Obama continually chose to avoid committing himself, choosing instead to appear to be fence sitting on NAFT. In truth, he would be the Trojan Horse that would let the enemy inside the city gates.

Is Ron Paul the best candidate? Who the hell knows? Each of the above named candidates (except Obama) has some very admirable positions and even if I didn’t agree with them on a few issues, they are honest and have shown a commitment to something higher than their political careers. I’ll take my chances with any one of them before I would vote for any of the corrupt and corruptible network sponsored stooges.  During the 2008 debates, the obedient and salivating media very obligingly gave little camera time to any of the non-NAFTA supporters. So, when you factor out all the NAFTA supporting globalist trash, the field narrows considerably.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 18, 2011 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

Any one else remember watching the 2008 Republican so called debate, which looked like an ambulatory KKK meeting and the main topic of the day back then, was which technique of enhanced interrogations was the best for liberals and terrorists.  So this time around we see a Repulican cross section of the populous with a loony female and a rich guy who happens to be black.

Every one of these clowns are opportunists of the highest odor,  not to insult the skunk variety.

Not only do they seem to have the Republican uncreative knack to lie with a straight face or even strangle and gut Medicare, Societal Security and the truth with relish of for hire zeliots ... they insult the unintelligent huddled masses on the street, with what one person has called oral flatulence and I as I prefer to call typical Republican Political hubris.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, June 18, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Oh! I almost forgot. Isn’t Greenspan in the mix somewhere? Any further clarification would be helpful. God! I’m so embarrassed! I must be fundamentally flawed.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, June 18, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

BR549

Whatever.

Thanks for attempting to clear things up. I’m still confused though. Is Ayn Rand the fairest of them all? Is Ron Paul the handsome prince? Why did Ron name his son Rand? Is Ron the only opponent of NAFTA? Seeing as how our debt is around thirteen hundred quadrillion, and we have a kabillion dollars of derivatives out there, how will going on the gold standard help us? We don’t have enough gold to fulfill the current demand for bling. The whole deal is kind of vague to me. I’m especially interested in Ayn Rand, she’s intriguing, for example, who is William Edward Hickman, and what’s his connection to Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, NAFTA, Junior Samples, and Snow White.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 18, 2011 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

JD,
A few people had later commented that Ron Paul should not have been included; the term 6 dwarfs, however, just didn’t seem to carry as much comedic muscle. Ron Paul was the only one of the bunch that has continuously tried to warn us about NAFTA and while he might not be as eccentric as Perot was on the issue, his passions happens to lie with finances and the Fed; both deeply rooted in the
same problem. The others are just spewing oral flatulence and trying to look good for the camera.

(PS - you can pluralize dwarf both ways)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, June 18, 2011 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

The Seven Dwarfs (Dwarves, whatever)? I’m confused by all this symbolism. Is Ron Paul one of the Seven Dwarfs (Dwarves, whatever), or is he the handsome prince? Does that mean that Ayn Rand was the “fairest in the land”? Like I said, I’m confused.

Report this

By christian96, June 17, 2011 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

In my opinion a vote for a third party candidate is
a waste of a vote.  On the other hand a vote for a
republican or democrat is a waste of a vote. Like it
or not our country is controlled by a two headed
beast.  The two heads are republicans and democrats.
The beast is the multinational ultra wealthy corporations on which the heads rest.  I would like
to see a law passed requiring politicians in Washington to take turns working in sweatshops in
China for six months.  They could take $1,000 dollars
with them but nothing else.  They could only receive
information from home in case of an emergency.
Other than not no communications with the outside
world for the six months they worked in the sweatshops.  If they violated the rules they would
automatically be dismissed as politicians without
receiving any pension when reaching 62 years of age.
A state election would be held to replace them in
Washington.  How many politicians would leave Washinton at one time to work in the sweatshops for
six months would be determined in a national election.  Let our elected officials experience what
it is like to work in a sweatshop without a union.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Bobi6,
“I honestly don’t believe Obama has control over anything at all. Look at his appointees – all corporate clones and right wing. Look at his record of caving.”

I look at it this way; I have no issue with a black president, and forgetting for a moment that he was born in Kenya and is holding office illegally, all he had to do was start coming through with his promises and the Democrat Party would have no opposition in 2012. If the guy had any integrity, he would have been at least been explaining why his promises were not coming to fruition, then we could vote out the legislators who were opposing what the rest of us had all voted for. All he had to do was make it all public, but instead, it was more of the same smoke and mirrors bullshit. S.S.D.D.

There is NO excuse whatsoever for us to be in Afghanistan still, and if Obama was such a worthwhile Nobel Peace Prize recipient, why are we planning to invade Libya with a full on ground assault in October? Might it be because Libya has the largest oil and water reserves on the continent? Noooo, of course not.

So, Bobi, it wasn’t just that he didn’t have control of the situation, the asshole was part of the plan of deception the whole time. He an intelligent guy, but as we are all finding out, he has no spine. I feel sad for Malia and Sasha. They have to eventually learn the truth about their father and his part in playing Judas. The globalists will have no further use for him and he’ll wind up on a slab somewhere, just like anyone else who knows too much and is of little value. My guess is a mountain plane crash; that seems to be the assassination du jour these days. CIA, Pentagon, who knows who will be behind it. They’ll all throw their hands in the air or start pointing fingers at some new yet to be started terrorist group, but these people take care of their own and he ain’t one of them. In their eyes, he will always be a globalist shoe shine boy.

Report this

By diamond, June 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

“Sara Palin did not read everything Thomas Jeffereson ever wrote, but she did see his name on the check in list at Motel Six after the British were warned by Paul Reviere!”

Tsk, tsk. Leefeller, don’t you know it’s cruel to mock the unhinged? Funny, though. Paul Reviere? Wasn’t he a hairdresser or something? Ask Sarah Palin: she’ll know.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 17, 2011 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Cliff,
That is why I had related my account of the 2010 election earlier. Sadly, the voting public no longer has that opportunity to see how everyone else felt before this so crucial 2012 election. As of 2010, too many of them were still Dancing With the Stars and trying to live out their pathetic existence through somebody else’s reality show.

So where do we go from here? The one simple message is to NOT vote for any Republican or Democrat, but who does the average grainbelt American vote for in their stead? Nader, McKinney, Gravel, Paul, or whoever is going to to throw their hat in the ring in this next round? I cannot emphasize how important it is for these independent candidates to marshall their forces and stop thinking that each of them has the only successful dog and pony show on the road. None of their sideshows will amount to beans if they continue to keep the politically disgusted majority of Americans divided into a myriad of go-nowhere camps.

Report this

By Bobi6, June 17, 2011 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is not spam. If you are now into censorship I shall quite this
website
I completely disagree that Obama will be the only adult in the room.
Obama has lied to us every step of his last campaign. I now believe we
were set up and the whole 2008 was decided by Wall St etc long before
we even knew he was running. At a small fundraiser in 2008 Michelle
inadvertently revealed that it was all happening so fast and it seemed as
if they (the Obamas) had no control over what was happening. I
honestly don’t believe Obama has control over anything at all. Look at
his appointees – all corporate clones and right wing. Look at his record
of caving. Just the other day he again caved in on those fake private
‘colleges’ which are as much colleges as my kindergarten was.

Obama is extremely weak. The only thing he is sure of is his ambition. I
am sure he made a lucrative deal pre-campaign. They say he is smart.
Oh really, I don’t think so. His completely ignoring of the middle class,
the poor. His health care reform is a corporate gift.

The only thing he has shown some gumption is when he follows the
commands of the generals and those who profit from the weapon
industry and invades another poor country.

He has completely rejected the liberals or what is left of them.

The only choice for me is to vote Green. I could not bring myself to vote
for Obama again. How can I reward someone who has turned on the
country and hurt hundreds of millions of Americans. He is as close to a
traitor as I can imagine.

Obama’s biggest talent is caving in and kissing Republicans’ backsides .
He disgusts me. Yes, I gave him money, Yes I walked my legs off with
severe back pain to do all I could to get him elected.

My family gave the maximum to his 2008 campaign. This time they are
giving nothing. I will not donate a penny. And interesting enough no
one I know will donate to further his weaknesses and treachery. He is
bad for the country, bad for Americans, bad for education and his
march to corporatize our public schools, he buys into perpetual war, he
wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid and our best
programs. He has turned his back on 85% of the population as if this
were not a democracy. Oh I forgot the U.S. is not a democracy anymore. 

Maybe it would be better to let one of the 7 dwarfs win and wake up
America. At least we would be rid of a pretend president and stuck with
a dunce but at least the dunce might be more flexible or so bad the
2016 election would end with a decent president.

It has been long line since we had a decent president. I think that was
probably Carter but he never has a chance. Since then every president
has sold out to Wall Street and corporate America. Every single one. I
had hopes for Clinton but he turned out to be NOT SO SMART after all.

But of all of them Obama is by far the worse. George Bush was weak but
at least he was capable of backing down on privatizing Social Security
but not Obama. Four more years and the man will cave on everything.
In fact I don’t think he is caving at all. It is all part of the plan when he
sold his soul to become the first right wing Democratic president.

Why is anyone supporting him when we have decent people who could
run like Russ of WI? The brain dead Democrats forced one of our good
congressional reps to resign over a small indiscretion. Weiner worked
for the people which Obama does not. Pelosi lost one supporter here. It
was Breitbart, a real scumbag who set him up paid with our money.

Bob, I agree with you almost all the time but supporting Obama just
crosses the line for me. I could not live with myself if I did. However he
may have done himself in. The small donations he depended on in 2008
will not materialize this time. Who would be crazy enough to waste had
earned money on this psychopath. He is scrambling to raise from the
rich but now reveals he is just pretending they have access.

Report this

By Bobi6, June 17, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I completely disagree that Obama will be the only adult in the room.
Obama has lied to us every step of his last campaign. I now believe we
were set up and the whole 2008 was decided by Wall St etc long before
we even knew he was running. My daughter had a conversation with
Michelle at a small fund raiser in 2008 and Michelle inadvertently
revealed that it was all happening so fast and it seemed as if they (the
Obamas) had no control over what was happening. I honestly don’t
believe Obama has control over anything at all. Look at his appointees
– all corporate clones and right wing. Look at his record of caving. Just
the other day he again caved in on those fake private ‘colleges’ which
are as much colleges as my kindergarten was.

Obama is extremely weak and unscrupulous. The only thing he is sure
of is his ambition. I am sure he made a lucrative deal pre-campaign.
They say he is smart. Oh really, I don’t think so. His completely
ignoring of the middle class, the poor. His health care reform is a
corporate gift.

The only thing he has shown some gumption is when he follows the
commands of the generals and those who profit from the weapon
industry and invades another poor country.

He has completely rejected the liberals or what is left of them.

The only choice for me is to vote Green. I could not bring myself to vote
for Obama again. How can I reward someone who has turned on the
country and hurt hundreds of millions of Americans. He is as close to a
traitor as I can imagine.

Obama’s biggest talent is caving in and kissing Republicans’ backsides .
He disgusts me. Yes, I gave him money, Yes I walked my legs off with
severe back pain to do all I could to get him elected.

My family gave the maximum to his 2008 campaign. This time they are
giving nothing. I will not donate a penny. And interesting enough no
one I know will donate to further his weaknesses and treachery. He is
bad for the country, bad for Americans, bad for education and his
march to corporatize our public schools, he buys into perpetual war, he
wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid and our best
programs. He has turned his back on 85% of the population as if this
were not a democracy. Oh I forgot the U.S. is not a democracy anymore. 

Maybe it would be better to let one of the 7 dwarfs win and wake up
America. At least we would be rid of a pretend president and stuck with
a dunce but at least the dunce might be more flexible or so bad the
2016 election would end with a decent president.

It has been long line since we had a decent president. I think that was
probably Carter but he never has a chance. Since then every president
has sold out to Wall Street and corporate America. Every single one. I
had hopes for Clinton but he turned out to be NOT SO SMART after all.

But of all of them Obama is by far the worse. George Bush was weak but
at least he was capable of backing down on privatizing Social Security
but not Obama. Four more years and the man will cave on everything.
In fact I don’t think he is caving at all. It is all part of the plan when he
sold his soul to become the first right wing Democratic president.

Why is anyone supporting him when we have decent people who could
run like Russ of WI? The brain dead Democrats forced one of our good
congressional reps to resign over a small indiscretion. Weiner worked
for the people which Obama does not. Pelosi lost one supporter here. It
was Breitbart, a real scumbag who set him up paid with our money.

Bob, I agree with you almost all the time but supporting Obama just
crosses the line for me. I could not live with myself if I did. However he
may have done himself in. The small donations he depended on in 2008
will not materialize this time. Who would be crazy enough to waste had
earned money on this psychopath. He is scrambling to raise from the
rich but now reveals he is just pretending they have access.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, June 17, 2011 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Very True BR549

And I think I recognize the first whisperings of the oncoming tide of Republican Trolls whose orders are to spread out and convince the public that it was those nasty old Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and others of their ilk that has dragged this Country to its knees.

No these Trolls won’t be illuminating the Republican, the Tea Party Sub Republicans, the Haves and Have Mores of this Society, the contribution they made in dragging this Country to its knees.

See that old Quote “You can fool most of the people most of the time, and all of the people some of the time, and ... well you know how it goes, but that old quote has been modernized to become “Hell, all you have to do is fool enough of the people every four years…”
you get the picture?  And it matters not which Party you support R or D, you will still be screwed.

Now what is the Common Man to Do?

This is how Resistance begins.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 17, 2011 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

David Cyr

Fantastic analysis.  Oh and as an aside, the angry responses that you and I receive from “liberal” apologists for the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system is discussed here.

From the New Progressive Alliance front page.

The Cradle Will Rock

Consider yourself warned: “Liberals” are learning about the NPA. And they are not happy.

As a look at the twitter feed on this page shows, “Liberals” don’t like our plan to recruit a primary challenger to President Obama. So it just goes to follow that they’ll be really pissed when - after “Obillion” and the Democrats buy his re-nomination - we endorse an Indie or third-party candidate over both marionettes the UniParty puts up in November of 2012.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, June 17, 2011 at 8:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Taxes are to republicans like vegetables to kids.  Time to grow up and be adults.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 17, 2011 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

David J. Cyr, June 17 at 4:03 am
“A Democrat voter is someone who never wastes any opportunity to eliminate the potential good an election could have provided.”

I love it, but why leave the Republicans out?

The voters of BOTH of these parties can be likened to followers of allopathic medicine, where supporters constantly give up responsibility for their own health to someone else. They’re looking for an easy way out of this “citizenship” thing; willing to listen to any sharp dressed charlatan mounted on a wooden crate, peddling snake oil and promising to cure anything.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 17, 2011 at 4:03 am Link to this comment

It is manifestly ridiculous for liberals (aka progressives) to be ridiculing the intellectual dwarfism of Republican candidates.

59,934,814 “ignorant” McCain voters voted to continue a “dumb” war, and keep SickCare sick.

69,456,897 “intelligent” Obama voters voted to MoveOn to redeploy into more “dumb” wars (plural), because wars become “necessary” and “humanitarian” when Democrats manage them; and to MoveOn to make SickCare even sicker.

The corporate party’s “ignorant” (R) voters voted to keep things evil, and the corporate party’s “intelligent” (D) voters voted to have greater evil done.

It was (D) “intelligent” corporate party liberal progressives who waged a decade long campaign of highly successful voter suppression, to persuade voters that any vote against war was a “wasted” vote; that any vote for actual healthcare (Single-Payer) was a “wasted” vote; that any vote for any good policy was a “wasted” vote.

A Democrat voter is someone who never wastes any opportunity to eliminate the potential good an election could have provided.

There is clearly a consummate evil represented in the pride of “intelligent” liberals.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 17, 2011 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Sara Palin did not read everything Thomas Jeffereson ever wrote, but she did see his name on the check in list at Motel Six after the British were warned by Paul Reviere!

Report this

By diamond, June 17, 2011 at 12:46 am Link to this comment

“I have read about everything Jefferson wrote, I have studied his contributions to this nation of ours. I wish you demonstrated more dispassionate reasoning but, in the end, it seems impossible to break through this wall or psychosis of yours so I will no longer attempt to do so.”

People can write anything, it’s what they do that matters. Look at Thomas Friedman and Sarah Palin, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and numerous others. All I’m saying is that the reality fell far below the standards he set for himself and presumably for others. I’ve seen descendants of Sally Hemmings interviewed: in fact I saw a program on a family reunion where both his white and black descendants were together. If Jefferson’s white descendants can accept the truth I guess you will just have to do the same.  He certainly wasn’t the only white massa who jumped into bed with slaves. Jefferson also wasn’t the only politician not to make a moral decision because it would have had a bad effect on his political career. You can see the same dynamic playing out to this very day in politics, with politicians doing and saying things they know are false and even morally wrong because it would cost them their careers or lose them votes to speak out. I am not, however, seeking to ‘cast him off’ and I don’t deny he had a brilliant mind. But he was a man, not a divinity and a man of his time too. No one can make a case that the founding fathers as a group tried to end slavery in America - they didn’t - and the Congress passed laws throughout the era that supported the rights of slave owners and classified slaves not as people but as property.  My point was simply that Bachman is an ignorant idiot if she thinks what she babbled is true. Populist rabble rousers like her always try to hark back to some glorious era peopled by gods - even Hitler did it.

Report this

By Cat, June 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just read this on another blog on another site. Can any one find out if it is true. Cause i believe it is. and if i am right we have big problems. Here it is copy and pasted word for word.
Why aren’t we talking about this. (National Enquirer February)

New Speaker of the House JOHN BOEHNER is embroiled in a bombshell sex scandal - involving at least two different women, The ENQUIRER has learned!

Capitol Hill insiders and political bloggers have been buzzing about an upcoming New York Times probe - detailing an alleged affair that the 61-year-old married father of two had with pretty Washington lobbyist LISBETH LYONS.

And an ENQUIRER investigation has uncovered a bedroom encounter that Boehner - second in line of succession to the presidency - allegedly had with LEIGH LaMORA, a 46-year-old former press secretary to ex-Colorado Congressman JOEL HEFLEY.

The Ohio native, a congressman for 20 years, and his wife Deborah, 62, have been married for 37 years.

But she has shunned the capital’s social scene, and he is often seen out on the town without her.

“Deborah normally stays back in Ohio while John spends most of his time in D.C.,” said an insider. “It is not uncommon for Boehner to attend parties and events without his wife.”

Contacted by The ENQUIRER in late January about the cheating charges, Deborah stood by her man and would not comment about the explosive allegations.

But The ENQUIRER learned that Deborah was nowhere to be seen when the ruggedly handsome congressman attended a casino party at the home of a D.C. lobbyist in August 1997 - and reportedly hooked up with pretty congressional press secretary Leigh LaMora.
(less)

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2011 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

diamond, June 16 at 3:08 pm

I am really sorry that you choose this path for yourself. I have read, and admired many of your efforts here, regardless of whether or not I favored them.

Now you seek to cast off one of the most brilliant minds and innovative thinkers in this nations history because you believe he slept with a thirteen year old Sally Hemmings, a “fact” you toss out without feeling the need for corroboration of any kind. I know that Jefferson and Hemmings had a very long term relationship, possibly even a loving one. I do not know, nor do you, the circumstances surrounding their lives. I only see hatred and a lack of distance in your words and refuse to continue this discussion.

Perhaps you ,yourself, have such an event in your past, thus can be somewhat excused for using such preposterous and hyper lack of reason. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, as did every rich person of his time around the world, yes Jefferson DID INDEED attempt to free them and was blocked from doing so by his own legislature.

I have read about everything Jefferson wrote, I have studied his contributions to this nation of ours. I wish you demonstrated more dispassionate reasoning but, in the end, it seems impossible to break through this wall or psychosis of yours so I will no longer attempt to do so.

Here’s to reading a better class of post from you in future.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

diamond, June 16 at 3:08 pm

“Yes, they claim to be against war (don’t they all?) but they also want to abolish
income taxes ...”

Tells me what a miserable sociopathic wretch you are when you can dispense
with war so flippantly, and dispose of reality on faith in your own seemingly
bottomless stupidity.

“Ron Paul would make George W. Bush look like a sane and rational leader.”

Which is why Kucinich, Sanders and Nader hold him in such high esteem, but of
course you are much closer to Bush and the neoliberal scum in Congress, than
those three.

sick…

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 16, 2011 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

@ diamond, June 16 at 3:08 pm

Well, according to your bottomless level of pessimism, I guess we should all just march right out and get our Vaseline right now. Why wait for the rush?

While Jefferson may have indeed been sleeping with a 13 year old slave, the entire planet was still emerging from that slavery model. If you agree with Michelle Bachmann that the forefathers’ mission was to address slavery, then knock yourself out with trying to interpret Jefferson. You’ll come up a loser every time.

The fact remains that the evolution of our founding documents began almost 120 years earlier than people believe and it wasn’t until economic and social factors forced more definitive language from those we call our forefathers that we now have that masterpiece called our Constitution. It is simple and has numerous crosschecks built into it, but they couldn’t have anticipated the explosion of technology, especially the manipulation of the communication industry that would ultimately undermine the citizens’ very understand of the country and government that supposedly belonged to them.

Trash Jefferson all you want. I think you’re totally missing the point.

Report this

By diamond, June 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

“Please do your research. Jefferson attempted, while still in the Virginia legislature, to free his slaves. The legislature reacted by creating a “tax” on freeing slaves that made it impossible for Jefferson to do such.”

Oh, I see. And did they also pass a law that he had to sleep with a thirteen year old slave girl and father eight children with her? And did they mandate that he put his darkest slave children to work on the outermost reaches of his property while the lightest skinned were allowed to work in the house? The man was a racist and a sexist (as nearly every man of his time was, even the educated ones) and no person of genuine moral character would have had slaves in the first place let alone taken a thirteen year old in to his bed. He was a man who lived two lives and put on a public mask of moral virtue and spouted high flown rhetoric while making money out of slavery and indulging his sexual urges with a powerless and vulnerable girl.

Jefferson epitomizes everything that’s wrong with America and clearly it was all there, right from the start. Which is why the Tea Party prattles on about the Founding Fathers the way they do: they love the righty, whitey patriarchal fantasy they represent and play to the gallery with the fake moral rectitude they supposedly represent - but, of course, when you look at people like Bachman and Palin you’re looking at people who don’t know their behind from their head when it comes to history so they probably believe the lie and want others to believe it too. On the other hand they’re so fake there’s no reason to think their faith in the Founding Fathers isn’t fake too.

And for the Ron Paulites: think about what a libertarian really stands for. Yes, they claim to be against war (don’t they all?) but they also want to abolish income taxes altogether as well as public health and public education and to allow parents to educate their children at home - so they won’t be exposed to the godless myth of evolution among other things I assume- according to their manifesto. Perhaps they intend to re-introduce the slave trade to recoup the lost taxes, I don’t know how else they intend to run a government. The liberatians are in fact just another strand of the lunatic fringe that infests American political life and would be so disastrous in office that it hardly bears thinking about. Ron Paul would make George W. Bush look like a sane and rational leader.

Report this

By TAO Walker, June 16, 2011 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

Apparently many here did not get the memo:  “America” is sooooo OVER!

HokaHey!

Report this

By patin reno, June 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sorry to correct you but it should be titled ‘the seven dorks’.When is the gop going to give us a serious,smart,nonteabagger,who has a clue to what is going in the USA and with its citizens? Just asking.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, June 16, 2011 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

If our schools were requiring multiple years of non-pablum whitewashed civics classes, we might have even had a well informed voter base.

It’s true that when starting life with a defective base-information, it can have some rude-awakenings.

History is probably as important as math and reading/writing and probably more important than math/science. Why’s that?

George Santayana: “Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

We have just had a repeat of the Great Depression, 80 years onward and though to a lesser degree very destructive far too many American lives. If one looks at the history that led up to the Crash of 1929, it is amazingly similar to what happened just before the Credit Mechanism Seizure of 2008.

Yes they were different, but still sufficiently similar. Both were fueled by human greed. Which means what?

That we could also use a good course on moral philosophy in high school and another on Business Ethics at university. This won’t guaranty more moral behaviour, but at least it creates a foundation for it.

Would they make any difference? We’ll never know unless we try ...

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 16, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

MHirzel and Lafayette,

Whether Ron Paul got in the oval office or Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Mike Gravel, or possibly even Kucinich, I believe that the public would wind up being far better informed of our current dysfunctional financial and foreign and domestic policies. That said, the current powers-that-be would probably escalate provocateuring more false flag events to show how ineffective any new policies were, and as long as the laws continue to allow small independent news agencies to get muscled out of existence by the likes of Rupert Murdock, (who should have NEVER been allowed to own media in this country), the voters will be intentionally be left in the dark and this country will continue to be parasitized by this huge corrupt tapeworm.

As I said before the 2010 election, had the majority of voters scattered their popular vote across all of the above mentioned candidates, 10% here, 15% there, etc, and supposing that a Republican or Democrat winner had only prevailed with something like 20% of the vote, the voters being able to later see that the vast majority of OTHER voters were also disgusted with the current political monopoly (let’s say 65%) would be a very powerful tool for the 2012 election. I had contacted the Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, and Nader camps back then to start burying their hatchets and suck it up. Too many voters, indeed, people around the world, were waiting for these candidates to stop back stabbing each other over petty disagreements. I can only assume that my suggestions were put in the File 13. My point was that, with that as a specific stated and advertised strategy, the 2010 election could have been used to gauge just how widespread and potentially unifying the various candidates’ messages actually were, in preparation for the 2012 election. But, they all shook their heads and plodded forward with their own campaigns, ultimately leaving the country even further in shambles. Great job!

All five of the above mentioned candidates opposed NAFTA, probably the single most important issue that is destroying this country in preparation for a globalist takeover through the IMF and Codex, and yet they couldn’t rally enough of a uniform front to convince the fence-sitting bible thumpers that there was any other party worth voting for. All these people would be of tremendous value to a new administration, but if each of them is only going to posture themselves for POTUS, the rest of us will all be out buying industrial size cans of Vaseline ....... again.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 16, 2011 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 8:48 am
“These family Republicans were as good hearted as anyone and cared about the middle class and poor, quite unlike the current batch of self-serving thralls of the American corporatocracy.”

... and ...

“I do not believe a “supermajority,” whatever the hell that might mean, voters
are corrupt and it is completely a case of bull shit .....”

As I said, I believe the majority of voters know something is wrong and yet are unsure what to do about it. If our schools were requiring multiple years of non-pablum whitewashed civics classes, we might have even had a well informed voter base.

As to the Constitution and the Supreme Court following through to preserve it, even Jefferson and and Madison could see a potential problem there. As Woods points out in his lecture, Jefferson’s “rightful remedy” was the last resort a state could employ to justify not complying with trash legislation from the Feds that only served to make certain people in high places wealthier and to undermine the
Constitution; that was to just say no. Woods’ book on Nullification was excellent and I remind myself that so-called constructionist justices such as Scalia may believe that we have evolved to a point where they can reinterpret the meaning of the Constitution to fit modern day issues, ..... BUT, as I have argued for some time, we have not yet matured enough as a so-called “civilized society” to exercise that luxury and deviate from the wisdom of that document, therefore, without getting into Scalia bashing, I’ll just say that I think he is too self-aggrandizing and a dangerous person to have on that bench. If the justices were doing their job, why are we where we are? Why is the economy in the toilet? Why were the banks allowed to steal the wealth of this country? Why are we now illegally planning to fully invade Libya this fall? As Woods has stated, at some point, even the Supreme Court can become part of the problem. What’s a state to do?

I will check into the references you suggested. Please, if you haven’t looked into Woods, I think you will be comfortably surprised with his level of research into this issue.

Nice to hear from you again.  :o)

Report this

By Bri, June 16, 2011 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

Would the Oligarchs really disapprove of a Ron Paul presidency?  Sure, he favors ending the Fed which is the bailout mechanism, but he would never succeed.  Instead he would probably help weaken regulation (according to his book, the only regulation he supports is anti-fraud).  The banks and financial institutions (redundant) would continue to grow and upon failure, will be bailed out by the taxpayer.  If he succeeded in ending the Fed, who knows what would happen?

Report this

By MHirzel, June 16, 2011 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Quote Leefeller:

“What is this an sounding like an evangelical even fanatical push for Ron Paul?”

If by “evangelical even fanatical push,” you mean ardent, then yes, Mea Culpa.

I don’t usually post on these sites because I have seen too much to think it does much good at all.  In fact, I’ve given up the republic for lost, quite frankly.

However, I do think that putting someone with the political philosophy of Ron Paul in the Oval Office - lost cause that it probably is to hope for - would, at minimum, allow an honest man to exercise the veto, stop the maniacal wars, and focus discussion about the REAL issues that have destroyed democracy, social justice, the environment, you name it.

As a real fanatic or evangelical, I don’t have many qualifications…. Both require a conviction that my fellows will rise to the challenge.  I don’t have much hope for that, frankly.  We are all too divided and ready to bash anyone who departs from some lock-step inspired creed.

But, as has been said, “Hope dies last.”

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, June 16, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

The electoral strategy plan of the Replicants has been and shall be right up to election day next year to stonewall any legislation that would show that BO & Co are trying to solve America’s urgent problems.

This was demonstrated during the negotiations for Health Care legislation last year, that lopped off a nascent Public Health Option. The strategy has been repeated with the present budget ceiling infighting.

The strategy is perverse and perfectly in keeping with the Replicant “Winner Take All” attitude that they have had for a great long time.

And the American voter? Just a necessary evil, to be manipulated in any manner consonant with their objectives after which said voters can take a long walk off a short pier.

It is difficult to imagine any modern day political dogma or conduct more alarming or more insidious. These are the people who have lead this country into a series of disasters and they want desperately control once again.

America for them is not One Nation, it’s “Us” against “Them” in an effort to maintain the existing Plutocrat Mechanism by which business interests influence Congress for financial advantage.

They must not pass.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 16, 2011 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

What is this an sounding like an evangelical even fanatical push for Ron Paul?

As far as the insults by mc.Murphy, they sound little different than what Republicans like Texas Perry sound like,  for I find insults and obfuscation and non-motivating factor in any discussions. Why do I suspect distraction toll?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

BR549, I read your comments with much interest, as I usually do.
I admit to being reactive but it is only because I have been listening
to Republican miscreants for an interminably long time. I agree the
Republicans of today are not the same as the ones I new when I was
much younger. I have relatives who are Republican of the old school
who were not as bloodthirsty or as mercilessly uncharitable as the
savages we have today. The Republicans of old were conservatives in
the real meaning of the word, those who resist the kind of “idealistic
hot-headedness of reformist youth,...regardless of cost to life and
limb,” as one political philosopher, Alex Moseley, put it, and wish to
conserve the world as it is (was).  These family Republicans were as
good hearted as anyone and cared about the middle class and poor,
quite unlike the current batch of self-serving thralls of the American
corporatocracy. 

To say that Democrats suffer similar corruption may be true, but it
does not exonerate the self-serving Republicans and that is a separate
issue which I would be glad to discuss separately and it should be
discussed thoroughly.  I do not believe a “supermajority,” whatever the
hell that might mean, voters are corrupt and it is completely a case of
bull shit being impossible to show.  It is much too easy to make an
unsupported claim that would take an enormous amount of resources
to check out! Hence, it is fallacious.  You are right about the absolute
and only responsibility of politicians to serve the people.  Most of those
people are not in the 1% of the population who hold the wealth of the
nation.  So much more talk about the responsibility of politicians is
needed as well.

The question of the Constitution is one of interpretation and that is why
we have a Supreme Court who rules on the constitutionality of disputes. 
It is a travesty and detriment to the American people that the Supreme
Court is partisan. Mainly because interpretation is influenced by party
politics and the current court is still and has been for a good decade, a
weighted as conservative court that tends toward a neo-conservative
state of mind that sides with new-Republican values.  Shall we list them
again (I already did in my Republican 10 Commandments, but there
may be more)?

We have a dumbed-down population for an iniquitous and intentional
reason: the anti-intellectualism that has permeated the Republican
agenda since Reagan.  This was not true of Eisenhower’s America.  You
are right again, that the people have an innate sense that there is
something terribly wrong.  The people may not have been educated as
they should have been but that does not mean they are stupid. 
Ignorance is not stupidity.  (Suggested eye-opening reading from
Hofstater’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, and Jacoby’s The Age
of American Unreason just to name two references of enlightment of
what is going on here.)  Your so-called bible-thumpers have been
brilliantly illustrated in the book by Edward Humes, Monkey Girl.  So
armed with some highly investigated behaviors of the Republican effort
in the last 30 or so years, there are arguments to be made that have
some weight not just emotional claims.  I appreciate what you said and
think you are one of the enlightened ones.

Report this

By MHirzel, June 16, 2011 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul a “corporatist”?

No way.


Ron Paul & Ralph Nader: A Libertarian-Progressive Alliance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXVD7uBU2s

Report this

By MHirzel, June 16, 2011 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Is Ron Paul more Progressive than Obama?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/29/971321/-Is-Ron-Paul-more-Progressive-than-Obama

Report this

By MHirzel, June 16, 2011 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

One further suggestion for progressives who are intellectually curious….

Do a simple Google search: Progressives for Ron Paul…and poke around.

Report this

By MHirzel, June 16, 2011 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

Quote tedmurphy41:

“But, surely, there must be some individual with principles and the moral courage to take on this challenge but one who does not have the backing of those financial oligarchs who would have the most to lose should someone of that calibre make it to the Oval Office.”

You describe Ron Paul here.  LISTEN to what he is and has been saying (for 30 years) and STOP thinking of him in the same box with the other Republicans.

Ron Paul is the very last person financial oligarchs would want in the Oval Office.  The very last.

Report this

By MHirzel, June 16, 2011 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

BR549 - So, so well said.  Right down the line.  (Wish I knew who you are!)

VERY significant is what you have said about what the “Republican” party label triggers in peoples’ minds on the left.  As you say, the original conservative philosophy no more resembles the “neocons’” b.s. that we’ve seen for years than does the current “neoliberal” b.s. that we’ve gotten from the “Democrats” in recent history.

To those willing to watch the Tom Woods speech previously mentioned, pay particular attention to the his description of his earlier blind allegiance to the positions of the elite Republicans, and how ashamed he admits to being over that.  But, he followed that inate sense that something had gone horribly wrong that BR549 refers to, did his homework on pure, original conservative political philosophy and examined his conscience.  The result was an about-face away from the greedy and warmongering neocons and toward full support for a return to constitutional principals and ethical, consistent, disciplined government.

LISTEN to him, and tell me Tom Woods does not care about social justice…..  Listen and you will not be able to do that.

Should the left not be willing to do the same self-examination?

And, I’m with you, BR549: TOM WOODS FOR PRESIDENT! grin

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 16, 2011 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Too many people get caught up trying to relate the current Republican Party to any semblance of former Republican values. Those days are gone. The vast majority of these voters don’t know what the original party espoused; all they see is what that party has devolved into and it has become a corrupt cesspool. So, Boehner can attempt to clean his ass up all he wants; coif his all to perfect hair, don a $3,000 suit, lie on his tanning bed and admire himself in front of the mirror, but at the end of the day, after all that primping himself up like a prostitute, he’s still part of the problem.

But hold on, the Democrats have suffered from that same corruption. David refers to the liberals being the problem (I’ll read that as Democrats), Shen, the Republicans, and they are both correct.

David stated, “America has corrupt government because a supermajority of the American voters are corrupt.” I might be inclined to partially agree with that, but would do so only if allowed to note that it was the “politicians” who had so eagerly volunteered their professional services to enforce the ideals set forth in our Constitution. They took an oath. Since the legislators, executives, and
judiciary have taken that oath, under God, to support that document, why is it they the majority of them have caved in to corruption and greed? They have access to information we don’t. They schmooze with the elite of the media industry and what we wind up with is a dumbed down population who have reacted to the pablum and Kool-Aid that was fed to them by self serving people who knew exactly what they were doing.

So, no, I’m not buying that argument, not in full anyway. I think the majority of people have an innate sense that something has gone terribly wrong but they have been brought up, after successive generations, to become powerless to do anything about it. The legislature, executive office, and the judiciary have continually allowed for the build up of the federal government, which flies in the face of all the safeguards our forefathers had tried to arm us with. We have the wet-panty liberal Obama apologists who are still salivating over Hope and Chnage ..... balanced by an equal number of moronic Chicken Little bible thumpers who saw George and Laura as ‘such a nice couple”. They can’t discuss one single relevant political issue, but wasn’t Laura wearing such a nice dress? WTF?

MHirzel listed the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg

For anyone who has read Woods’ book, to see him speak was very powerful. I would encourage everyone here to follow up with it. The video is 48 minutes long with a three minute explanation of nullification starting around the 10:45 mark. It gets very powerful near the end. He’s incredibly well informed, bright, witty, charismatic, comedic, and he gives a shit. What more could you ask for? Would that he decided to run for President.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 4:55 am Link to this comment

The Republican Party is the Party Against the People.

The Ten Commandments of the Republican Party:

1.  The Republicans want to privatize Social Security.

2.  The Republicans want to destroy Medicare and make the middle-
    income people and seniors buy their own medical insurance.  This
    will kill off many seniors before their time to die and deplete the
    middle-income pocketbook even more than it already is.

3.  The Republicans want to terminate Medicaid leaving the poor to die
    without care.

4.  The Republicans want to increase pharmaceutical companies’
    profits.

5.  The Republicans want to take away women’s right to their own
    bodies.

6.  The Republicans want to dictate what you believe and dictate that
    school textbooks add creationism or intelligent design as how the
    universe and the earth began.

7.  The Republicans want to take your money and give it to Wall Street
    financial corporations and the banks and credit companies.

8.  The Republicans want to shelter the money of corporations and the  
    wealthy.

9.  The Republicans want to destroy the Clean Air Act and Clean Water
    Act.

10.  The Republicans want to invade your privacy by sorting through
    your email.

Report this

By wardad, June 16, 2011 at 4:08 am Link to this comment

@Ron Harvey:

Either you need to proof read your work (read aloud and rewrite) or
you are bat-shi*t insane and need to get back on your meds.

Please, if you comment on a website, make it comprehensible.

Peace,
ward

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 16, 2011 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, MHirzel:

“Isn’t the old “divide and conquer” technique JUST exactly how the elites have always diluted our voice and our power?”
________________

No. The opposite technique has been even more useful. The merger and acquisition of natural persons by corporate persons.

The solidarity of conservatives and liberals corporate state obediently stalwartly serving the corporate (R) & (D) party is the primary reason that the corporate persons have been able to concentrate their power. America has corrupt government because a supermajority of the American voters are corrupt.

Since liberals keep on voting for the Democrats who don’t do the good they could when they can, liberals apparently believe because they’ve raised their consciousness that it’s acceptable for them to do the things unconscionable.

Liberals are not any part of the Solution. They are the bigger part of the Problem.

It is the Democrat voter who ensures that evil always wins. That makes them the greater evil. And, yes, liberals are vicious. It’s the liberals who MoveOn in to perform a partial birth abortion on any left-spectrum real potential political alternative. It is the corporate party’s stalwart Democrat voting liberals who have best served and protected the corporate state.

“Democrats are the meanest bunch of motherfuckers I’ve ever come across.”
— James Ridgeway, Village Voice journalist

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 3:46 am Link to this comment

1. And since when do we have a Monarchy where Ron Paul could rule by
decree?!
2. End wars and Congress will have 500 Billion to play around with. If your
Democrats are worth their salt, then that money will go to WPA type projects,
and all the leftie goodies you can dream of. Without that money coming back,
you are inviting austerity, cuts and joblessness.

Argue on points, and political reality. Pulling things out of your arse won’t cut
it.

The only thing Ron Paul could unilaterally decree is an an end to Wars!!!! The
rest of the shit you throw up is parched shit that just won’t stick!

Besides, who is the candidate you will vote for to deliver your dream—Obama???

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 16, 2011 at 3:26 am Link to this comment

I feel Ron Paul is the best choice the Republicans have to offer, although the neocons would deny this.  He is a true Republican in the Barry Goldwater sense and wishes to return the majority of government functions to the states where voters have the most control as the 10th amendment intended.

His positions on ending US empire, auditing and reigning in the FED, ending US aid to rogue nations such as Israel and Pakistan have merit with the American people and would pressure the Democratic candidate to consider the same.

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2011 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

diamond, June 15 at 3:41 pm

Please do your research. Jefferson attempted, while still in the Virginia legislature, to free his slaves. The legislature reacted by creating a “tax” on freeing slaves that made it impossible for Jefferson to do such.

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2011 at 2:55 am Link to this comment

mc.murphy, June 15 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

ardee, June 15 at 1:19 pm

you must love the status quo, and are by choice a warmonger, which makes you
the most dangerous individual alongside all other who think alike.

you’re a totally despicable, unprincipled, brainwashed, twerp, ardee.

Thank you for so blatantly showing what a worthless piece of crap you are to any political debate. Are you twelve years old to post such diatribe against those who refuse to succumb to the idiocy and heartlessness of libertarianism?

No one insulted you or your views, only posted honest opinion regarding the downward spiraling road that is libertarian politics.  Yet you post juvenile crap about any and every poster who refuses your kool aid. You have busted yourself jackwagon and are now branded as a troll. Nice work.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, June 16, 2011 at 1:54 am Link to this comment

It’s a pretty simple choice for American voters to make, whoever is selected to the Republican ticket: Don’t vote for him/her.
Unless the nominee of any party has at least some rational ideas on how to address the problems facing America, you would be better served just to stay indoors.
But, surely, there must be some individual with principles and the moral courage to take on this challenge but one who does not have the backing of those financial oligarchs who would have the most to lose should someone of that calibre make it to the Oval Office.

Report this

By Alphysicist, June 16, 2011 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Regarding Obama Robert Scheer himself has been very critical.  In one interview he even said he “got suckered into” the Obama campaign, insinuating that Obama has not lived up to his promises, which is true.  He was also, on a number of occasions, been very critical of the Clinton administrations economic policies.

I would find it troubling, if he suspended this critical attitude when election time comes around.  I think that for the causes which would improve America both the Democrats and the Republicans have been obstacles.  The “I vote for the lesser of the two evils” attitude only prolongs the corrupt system, mainly because it leads to the automatic exclusion of meaningful alternatives, moreover, there is no such thing as the lesser of the two evils when it comes to the mainstream Republican/Democratic candidates (Ron Paul is an exception).  Examples of meaningful alternatives are Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

And yes, Ron Paul is a much better candidate than Obama, especially on the issue of ending American imperialism (it seems that even Newt Gingrich has shown signs of favouring that direction).

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, June 16, 2011 at 12:12 am Link to this comment

“Send in the clowns
Don’t bother they’re here”

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 11:32 pm Link to this comment

Sho’Nuff, June 15 at 10:52

not only that he could do it singlehandedly as a modern Unitary President on
the first fucking day in office, but the straw men being thrown up by the left
completely ignore the fact that the only way to get his economic libertarian
capitalism to become the rule of the land would require for Congress to
legislate it.

But if you listen to him, he proposes that the 500 billion savings from drawing
down empire is the money which Congress could then use for deficit reduction,
instead of gutting social programs and asking the working stiffs to pay for the
excesses of a FIRE and MIC sector captured government.

There is a good reason why Fox hates Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the enemy of the
establishment’s insider crooks.

Considering that he’s been consistent in his 22 years in Congress, and that if
we are honest with ourselves neither Obama not an establishment Republican
will work to end wars or to protect us from sociopathic banksters who are
insisting on turning us all into wage slaves and debt peons, so I (a libertarian
socialist) say:  Carpe diem!

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By Sho'Nuff, June 15, 2011 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul is the ONLY potential candidate on the scene who advocates for the end
of American Imperialism.  Even though his libertarian views would put an abrupt
end to the quasi-welfare state we’re living in now, I’d rather that be the case than
for one more brown person to suffer at the hands of this evil empire.  Take one for
the team, America.  The dream is over…

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, June 15 at 10:06 pm

some explanations of regulatory capture have been made below, and how the
agencies serve the corporatists instead of the people, yet you continue with
programmed, unexamined and mindless blather.

There is no way that a global commodities market could have been affected by
Sanders’ sponsoring a bil.

You sound like a a wind up idiot bunny.

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 15, 2011 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul has way too much baggage on other issues I find troubling,  plus his son is a liability I would not chance. As for regulations, being a problem,  cutting and gutting regulations is what got us into this mess in the first place. Sheer makes that quite clear in his article.  The idea regulations hurt all small businesses is an absolutist comment with little merit and sounds like comments from the seven dwarfs.

The abuses, the over reaching we keep seeing promoted and sponsored by the Republicans receiving orders from their benefactors screw the middle class agenda list is apparent, one does not need to see no stinking hand writing on the wall. Just look at Wisconson.

Bernie Sanders an independent Congressman from Vermont, sponsored a bill today actually ordering the regulators to enforce the existing regulations on the wall street speculators, which will drop the price of oil in one day, how is that hurting the small business, truckers the general public and even the airlines if enforcing regulations lowers gas prices? The Republicans and some Democrats will not pass it, because they are bought and sold by the same wall street speculators.

Report this

By Gorgeous, June 15, 2011 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

I take issue with the statement that Obama isn’t under pressure to improve because he’s facing idiots as adversaries. He could lose because of himself. I’ve studied Roosevelt and he never sold out to big business, banks, insurance companies and wall street. Obama has problems because we needed an FDR and we got Bush Lite. We needed a man of the people and we got someone who wants to be a member of the rich and feckless boys club and has sold us out to get there. I know half a dozen former Obama voters who are not going to vote in 2012 - that scares me to death.

Report this

By MHirzel, June 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

David, I’m sorry, but do you think comments like that are, in any way, productive?

Isn’t the old “divide and conquer” technique JUST exactly how the elites have always diluted our voice and our power? 

I used to self-identify as a liberal.  When Big Daddy Public Health, “benevolent” policy and subsequent denial of injury, took down my children, the liberal class refused to look, because “Health and Human Services…..”  Hell!  There can be nothing but public good in that…....

Yeah.  Right.

And that awakening caused me to re-think my views, and begin to educate myself about the unintended consequences of condoning/encouraging government intrusion into any area of private life, economics or natural liberties.

I did NOT wise up because anyone suggested I had been a “vicious fucking Democrat voting liberal zombie,” I assure you.

Such an approach only entrenches prejudices all around.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 15, 2011 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, mc.murphy:

“It’s all It’s all Orwellian shit, but the progressives and liberals just lap it up.”

_________________

There’s no actual difference between a liberal and a progressive.

A “progressive” is just a liberal pretending to not be the vicious fucking Democrat voting liberal zombie that they are.

Report this
James M. Martin's avatar

By James M. Martin, June 15, 2011 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

You missed something.  All of these dwarfs are named Dopey.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

MHirzel, June 15 at 4:45 pm

That ‘regulation’ bit is the progressives’ bigest canard. They trott it out at every
turn, and are unwilling to grasp that regulation as conceived is one of the best
friends of the thieving capitalist class. It creates regulation which disposes of their
potential smaller competitors, while lulling the public’s natural sense of caveat
emptor and repositing their trust into the hands of those who have absolutely no
interest in their well being.

Regulation is a hollow word, a brand which feeds on peoples’ aspirations. It’s all
Orwellian shit, but the progressives and liberals just lap it up.

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, June 15, 2011 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, MHirzel:

“As it stands now, industry LOVES being regulated.”
_______________

Yes, and liberals serve the human habitable environment destructive industries. Whenever liberals discover an evil they establish a bureaucracy to regulate it to make the evil sustainable.

Example: The Environmental Protection Agency regulates environmentalists to protect the polluters in the fossil-fuel extraction industry.

Report this

By Ralph Kramden, June 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Repeal Taft-Hartley or the working class is doomed. As to our illutrious first lady, to show you how liberal that couple is, she listed, at the Claremont in Berkeley, among her husband’s accomplishments “the capture of Osama Bin Laden.” Capture? It was a hit job accomplished in front of Osama’s twelve-year-old daughter. Al Capone would be proud. And she is a lawyer so she knows the difference between justice and vigilantism,

Report this

By MHirzel, June 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment

And, on “regulation.” 

Regulation, within the current corrupted system, winds up as Industry Captured regulative agencies, run by unelected “Czars,” unanswerable to Congress or the People.

As it stands now, industry LOVES being regulated.

If you want solid proof, just look at the CRIMINAL actions of the uncontrollable, unanswerable, beholden-to- industry FDA.

Report this

By MHirzel, June 15, 2011 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

I have no idea how anyone at all can defend Obama.  He turned out to be just one more lying ***hole, smiling and cooing at us in an effort to distract us from his part in tightening the noose around the neck of this republic, as he continues to support the shredding of the Constitution.

Don’t give me, “Obama’s the inept tow-truck driver who can’t pull it out, yet he’s being blamed for the crash.”  Obama just jumped right on that warm seat and drove it in deeper!! 

I honestly thought that the good that would come out of Obama’s election would be that people would finally see that it doesn’t matter which of the two mainstream parties is elected to the presidency…or even which way the Congress is stacked.

If, after all those silky campaign words, Obama could turn his back on We the People, then it OUGHT to have been a very loud wake-up call to the left.

I’m heartened to see some evidence in the comments here that, indeed, the veil is lifting for some.  But, the majority of those on the left - Mr. Scheer, obviously included - seem to be unable to consider taking a grown-up/woke-up look at reality.


I would love to hear comments on the speech by Tom Woods at a recent conference on nullification (video link below).  What I would particularly ask progressives to consider is his argument, toward the end of the speech, that the LOGICAL coalition that has any chance of saving our democracy is between progressives and the libertarian conservatives, to support a candidate like Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg

Any progresive who reflexively rejects such a coalition has NOT bothered to learn the difference between someone like Ron Paul and the other 6 GOPers in the debate.  Paul is an ENTIRELY different animals…. 

I’m sorry Mr. Scheer has not considered the stakes here, of dismissing the idea of support for Ron Paul, out of hand.

Report this

By Conden, June 15, 2011 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

Where is the democratic debate?  Where are Russ Feingold, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich to run against the war criminal, corporatist Obama and his failed, right wing government?  Obama has largely the same policies as the republican clowns, just with better speech and more hypocrisy.  People who want to entrench corporate fascism, like the scum wrong paul, do not count.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

Big B, June 15 at 12:18 pm

“Keep in mind, all you “ron paul” people out there, he is by and large, a
libertarian. That is, he still believes that we should de-regulate everything, not
tax anybody, and this will lead us all to prosperity.”

Let’s see.

Does regulatory capture ring a bell? SEC, EPA, etc…

Does taxation aimed as a transfer of your earnings for the benefit of FIRE and
MIC make sense? Wall Street bailout, Big Ag, Pharma subsidies, etc…

Is ending wars and dismantling empire, while bringing back 500Billion, and
saving countless lives nonsensical and deranged?

You are a wholly confused sap!

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

ardee, June 15 at 1:19 pm

you must love the status quo, and are by choice a warmonger, which makes you
the most dangerous individual alongside all other who think alike.

you’re a totally despicable, unprincipled, brainwashed, twerp, ardee.

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, June 15 at 3:20 pm

like!!!

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 15, 2011 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

That’s easy.

Now, show me a few Democrat(ic) giants, Sheer.

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By diamond, June 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

“Unless of course you think politics and democracy are real, and Michelle Bachman, mother of 23, is a real threat to your leftist dreams.”

Bachman may be a mother of 23 (actually I think it’s more than that) but she’s also an ignorant moron just like Palin. She told one audience that the Founding Fathers had fought to rid America of slavery. But, as one amused historian pointed out, most of the Founding Fathers had slaves (Thomas Jefferson fathered eight children with a slave, Sally Hemmings, who he took in to his bed when she was thirteen years old) and did nothing whatsoever to end slavery. Thomas Jefferson only freed his slave children on his death bed. In fact slavery didn’t end until at least fifty years after the Founding Fathers were dead and the US Congress fought tooth and nail not to end it, passing laws that allowed runaway slaves to be hunted down etc. And on and on it goes. The Republican party has degenerated into a rabble led by a confederacy of dunces. Palin, meanwhile, continues her bus tour to nowhere, mangling every historical fact she can lay her jaws on in the process. And then she claims that politically she’s in the ‘middle’. In the middle of what, a reasonable person might ask.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 15, 2011 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Quoting Scheer, “they ever so playfully thumbed their collective noses at any possible meaningful government reaction to the mess that we are in.”

Scheer is either a complete idiot or the most naive person who ever lived.  He calls these seven republicans dwarfs, yet he is no better, just playing the opposite side of the street.  He has been writing the same crap for decades.  You would think he would get tired of it. 

But I am not sucked in by it anymore, this constant left/right, democrat/republican, socialist/capitalist charade.  All these non-stop crisis’, wars, emergencies, etc, etc. 

It is obviously all fabricated for a purpose, because the “possible meaningful government reactions” are generally ludicrous or worse.  Government is a farce, a bunch of lackeys for the global elite.  How obvious can it get?  If democracy was real, why can’t we vote for the elitist goons who give the lackeys their orders?  And if politics was real, wouldn’t politicians do more than send obscene photos of themselves to people they don’t even know? 

Why does Scheer (and the rest of you bozos) even bother to comment on a republican debate?  Does he think there is something meaningful in it?  Does he think that it is democracy in action?  Democracy is an illusion, and you all know it.  So come up with something better to say.  Because most all the comments here are totally absurd, meaningless comments about meaningless events about meaningless politicians.  The ultra-powerful people will tell you who your next president is going to be when the time comes, so go back to your knitting. 

Unless of course you think politics and democracy are real, and Michelle Bachman, mother of 23, is a real threat to your leftist dreams.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
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