Bingo. What I said. He is just another version of Obama, and the Republican are too obtuse to see it. If they want to have a chance to win, they need to offer a clear choice, a difference in policy. Withdraw from foreign entanglements, eviscerate and repeal the patriot act, repeal national health care, the restoration of personal liberties, ending federal control over the nations food supply, destruction of the national police state and subservience to the global power elites. They need to take a stand against the international bankers and stand for an honest monetary system and a money supply that is governed and regulated by the people, not private interests. They need to stand for something other than what the Democrats stand for. Romney stands for none of this. He stands for all the same things, and is funded and supported by the same big corporate and banking interests that Obama is. If he is the one that receives the nomination, then it doesn't matter who is elected President, it really doesn't. The masses of people will feel like they were never even given a choice, most of them won't even show up to the polls to vote. They will instead show up in the streets. . . in even bigger masses then they are now when the next big wave of banks fail when congress attempts the next big round of bailouts. And believe me, it's coming, and the FED will attempt to coax congress into funding more bailouts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Romney doesn't seem to be an idiot. Do you ever wonder if he ever thinks to himself "I can't believe the shit I have to say to get elected." I don't wonder that about Cain, Bachmann, or Perry, they seem sincere in their dangerously blinkered viewpoints.
Unsettling Sincerity It is the sincerity that really unsettles people. It's not that people of faith shouldn't be in politics, but, rather, that the faith these candidates show, whether in Christ or capitalism or politics as reality is downright confounding in the sense that this is what it has come to. Leftists are often frustrated because the slightest liberal tendencies are denounced as extreme, yet people who betray their Christian faith by using it as a hammer against those they disdain are, apparently, close enough to the cultural mainstream as to even have a chance in presidential politics. And regardless of the leftists' opinions, the fact is that some people so disconnected from practical reality are expected to be taken seriously to some affecting degree. Right now, for instance, a significant portion of the country—perhaps even a voting majority—are terrified of the idea that a business ought to be run in such a manner as to provide quality products and services to the one, and living wages and benefits to the other. As the mantra goes, that's bad for business. It kills jobs. As we see, Communism itself does not inherently guarantee product or service quality, and it does not inherently guarantee a higher standard of living. One need not be a Communist to want these things in society, yet the discourse is so tilted toward the kind of "sincerity" we see in dolts like Cain, Bachmann, and Perry that quality of life is a radical, even revolutionary idea—and here's the kicker—that threatens our American way of life. How did it get so far? Theories, of course, vary widely across the spectrum, but it's almost like rollover in a video game, or circling the globe. If Pac-Man goes far enough in one direction, he eventually appears on the other side of the screen; if one sails far enough to the west, they will eventually arrive in the same place from the other side. The idea that if we go far enough in a direction that empowers inequality and degrades quality of life we will somehow, perhaps magically—or with God's magic blessing, or however—achieve equality and justice and a higher quality of life is counterintuitive to say the least, but we are obliged by the democratic weight of our culture to entertain it. Personally, I believe things have gone so far in that direction that we now teeter on an abyss, and the advocates of this outlook find themselves inching backwards toward the precipice. They're making a desperate stand because their way does not offer progress, they have exhausted all their excuses, and the alternative is, according to the articles of their faiths, unthinkable. They have nowhere left to go, so they're pushing these attitudes to the surface. Right now the dialogue isn't yes or no, but hand or mouth or ass; how do you want to gratify the would-be plutocrats and oligarchs? Because that's your job. That's why Speaker Boehner said the job creators are on strike. They're not going to get everything under the sun that they want, and that is a practical reality. What they want is unsustainable. But if they can't screw you one way, they're determined to screw you another. And the Bachmanns, Cains, and Perrys are what they have left to send to the Show.
Nice metaphor, or actually simile. Freedom may empower inequality, but to claim it degrades quality of life is a flat out lie. Here's the list of the countries with the highest economic freedom: Country Per Capita Income Ranking 1 Hong Kong 8 2 Singapore 3 3 Australia. 10 4 New Zealand. 33 5 Switzerland 8 6 Canada 13 7 Ireland. 12 8 Denmark. 17 9 United States. 7 10 Bahrain. 34 And here are the bottom 10 in economic freedom: Country Per Capita Income Ranking North Korea. 160 Zimbawee. 191 Cuba. 86 Eritrea. 189 Venezuela. 71 Burma. 169 Libya. 62 Democratic Congo. 193 Iran. 81 Timor-Leste. 143 Turkmenistan 169 http://www.heritage.org/Index/ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Notice a pattern? Economic freedom raises living standards, it doesn't lower them.
Yeah, heavy reliance on right wing whacko sources who are pushing an agenda rather than seeking the truth.
Do you have anything constructive to say or just the adhom? Regardless, please feel free to provide a different source ranking nations by economic freedom, or were you complaining about Wikipedia?
A provable observation of fact is not ad hominem. Well here is the deal, one of them minor details again. You used Wikipedia for a list of country by GDP. There is nothing wrong with that. You used the right wing so called "think tank" as the source for your listing of countries by "economic freedeom". You do rely heavily on this kind of source for your posts. The Heritage Group is nothing less than a propaganda tool for the American right wing. That is why it is only used by right the Heritage Foundation and her sister organizations and no where else. Two in your post you were creating a straw man. No one in this thread is advocating moving to a totalitarian government. And just exactly what does "economic freedom" mean? The fact is the Heritage Group created this highly subjective measure/concept. It is more of a political tool than anything that can be used for academic work or actual research.
Not sure how they defined "economic freedom," but I'll point out that a great many of the things that the left is pushing to handle inequality and improve quality of life (more progressive taxation, national healthcare, reduced militarism) are characteristic differences between the USA and those countries which rank higher on that list. So whatever you are suggesting when you argue for "economic freedom," it doesn't seem to be at all inconsistent with the policy prescriptions of the leftists that you are addressing this to as a rebuttal. You're literally telling people who want to make the USA more like Canada or New Zealand that this is a bad idea because it will decrease economic freedom and so quality of life, and then backing this up with a ranked list that shows Canada and New Zealand with higher economic freedom and lower per capita incomes. In other words, this is (another) hash of an argument.
So you're saying the US needs to avoid becoming militaristic like Canada and New Zealand? Or is it that we need to limit our economic freedom lest we lose our great national healthcare and our citizens are forced to suffer like those poor bastards in Canada? Talk about a hash of an argument. The link between economic freedom and prosperity is quite clear. We've even run controlled experiments. Take a nation, cut it in half, one side free, the other not. What happens? We don't have to guess. North Korea versus South Korea, East Germany versus West Germany. Or take a communist country and institute market reforms and China is suddenly loaning us money.
You seem to be avoiding the question. Just exactly what do you mean by "economic freedom"? And in your listing of countries by GDP per capita it is hard not to notice that countries at the top are either oil rich or are what people with your POV like to call socialist.
Marketplace Virtue I see. So would you, then, propose specifically that, as the younger generations face the prospect of being the first to live in an America with a declining quality of life, the way to raise that standard of living is to grant more of the "freedom" that caused the problem? This is what I don't get: Why do conservatives believe the would-be plutocrats and oligarchs are going to magically transform into altruists if you just give them enough money? If we just stack the deck in their favor a little more, then they'll start delivering those promises about all the good the free market does for people? How many times do you expect people to fall for that? Trickle down exacerbated wealth concentration. Deregulation broke the economic system ... again. Really, when your only prescription is historically demonstrated to lead to disaster, why the hell should anyone trust you?
I will certainly have more to add as time goes on, but the first significant point that comes to mind is that Obama has immunized himself against the forty-year-old standard claim that Democrats are weak on foreign policy. In fact he has been far more effective at fighting the war on terror than was Bush. Bin Laden is dead. The drone attacks have been terribly effective and a good percentage of Al Queda's leadership has been killed. Also, in spite of dire warnings from the right that Obama was showing his inexperience, Kadafi was taken down without the loss of one American life and without a trillion-dollar war. Back in 2002, before we invaded, and when the US was beating its drums under the leadership of Bush/Cheney to destroy those imaginary weapons of mass destruction, when our leadership [all of those "experienced" people] was saying this was going to be relatively quick, easy, and cheap, the young black Senator from Illinois, virtually standing alone, said this about Iraq. - Barack Obama, October, 2002 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/ For contrast. the war in Libya was a smart war.
Sheer Idiocy. You have no idea what is really going on in Libya, the war and the NATO occupation there has just begun. It is about international banking, and it is about oil. No different than it was in Iraq. Things aren't over there, not by a long shot, they're just getting started. If they don't solve the government problem soon, what the international banking cartel and NATO did there was unforgivable and it was like opening pandoraro's box. Libya had the highest living standard and was the most stable nation in Africa. Now? It has descended into Anarchy. Yeah, nice move Obama. You sure deserve that Nobel Peace prize. http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2012/01/libya-news-ntc-doesnt-control-situation.html http://libyasos.blogspot.com/ (+18) Report Libya 25. January 2012. by Libya S.O.S. 00h/ #Libya #Shocking #News #Photo -man was found dead and tortured by the road near the dumping site, member of Abu Salim battalion found him. It is obvious that he was tortured, burned and bruised. NTC gangs are cruel, and civilians are afraid of them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2012/01/libya-news-ntc-doesnt-control-situation.html By Libya S.O.S It is not fair that all the western media is reporting only about Bani Walid, like there are no fights and uprising in other regions. It seems that press is orchestrated and wants to divert attention from the happenings in Benghazi and Tripoli on purpose. But the problem is (about which Bani Walid elders are also worried about), that all the pressure is on Bani Walid, and NATO mercenaries and planes are headed for Walid, even talking about new bombing. What is their purpose we dont know, but hopefuly they will not make a siege of Walid again. The uprising is NOT LOCAL, its happening all around Libya and that's why there should not be any spacegoats. 00/ Arabiya correspondent: Gaddafi supporters succeed in controlling Bani Walid. In the mean time things are very serious in some cities, such as Tripoli, especially in the parts Saladin,Abu Salim, Eastern Plateau,Tarhunah. [Nessbook] 00h/ Shooting in Benghazi: Since the rebels in Benghazi: OmarAmer AlBarghathi Second night of gun shots here in Benghazi. feels like a full blown war on the street next to mine .. the National Army for firing back at Gates Could hear explosions and shootings in the neighborhood Sulmani As in Benghazi, ambulances heading for the place TRIPOLI: (Agenzia Fides) - "Explosions and gun shots near the Mahara Hotel are reported, near the headquarters of the Military Commission of Tripoli": this is what local sources, contacted by Fides in the Libyan capital report. Our sources recall that since Friday there are 20 shootings in Tripoli [ We are all Muammar Gaddafi ] *** Important Notice Group of gangs from of Misurata and Tripoli, located at a mosque of Malta on the road leading to the Bani Walid, are inspecting Mobile phones on provisional checkpoints. Contacts, photos and messages are searched by them. If they find photos of Gaddafi or photos offensive to NTC brabarians, people get exposed to all kinds of beatings and electric shocks. And to anyone who is heading this road (especialy women) to check their mobiles in order to preserve the safety And the same thing may happen in other places, so vulnerable people should be cautious And God save all the Free Liberals and the resistance 22h/ #Libya URGENT #Benghazi -Large Explosion in an area of Salmani and violent clashes. Sound of ambulances heading to the scene 1h ago #Photo #BaniWalid - Headquarters in which "May 28th" Battalion was besieged. Warfalla tribe said on their page that 2 young girls were injured by shrapnel from amunition (23anti-air) which was fired from the headquarters by the Battalion. One girl's injuries are serious. NATO back in Libya? 'Worst case scenario possible' 22h/ RT report- #NATO back in #Libya ? 'Worst case scenario possible' In Libya, at least five people have been killed and 20 others wounded, as supporters of leader Muammar Gaddafi seized control of the town of Bani Walid, after clashes with a group loyal to the new government. Earlier, the National Transitional Council's leader warned that the country was on the verge of civil war. The NTC has already been struggling with violent protests in its stronghold of Benghazi, which forced its second most senior official to resign. The demonstrators, many of whom helped overthrow the previous regime, are angered by the slow pace of reform and a lack of transparency in the handling of the country's assets. Patrick Hayes, a reporter for the online magazine Spiked, says the worrying events in Libya are not surprising. There is a ton more written at this blog that show that NATO is involved in propping up the NTC and fighting is ongoing. The "war" is NOT over. Progress has gone to slow, and you have been fed a pack of lies by western media. Its too bad their internet controlling SOPA and PIPA laws didn't go into effect, then at least you would have the excuse that you can't do your own research and find out the goddamned truth. But no, you're to lazy to read. Cynthia McKinney: 12,000 U.S. troops bound for Libya Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ever since war broke out in Libya, the false rumor, given credibility by Amnesty International, that Col. Qaddafi had recruited Black mercenaries to fight the rebels, has made life hell for Blacks in Libya, where nearly half the population is Black. Latent racism, discouraged by Qaddafi, has led to an ethnic cleansing. Right now, thousands in a Misrata prison face imminent death; readers are urged to contact the Red Cross (contact information below). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's too bad SOPA and PIPA didn't pass. If the internet were censored, at least I could feel better knowing that folks like you have an excuse for not knowing any better, b/c the information just isn't available, it's blocked. But right now? Are you willfully blind?
Okay, so the first point is that you are incapable of being civil. Yes, removing a brutal dictator that promises to exterminate his own people, without the loss of one American life, is a total disaster. What would you prefer, a ten-year US occupation and a trillion-dollar war with many more dead - both Libyans and Americans? There was no easy fix for Libya after almost 40 years of a brutal dictatorship. The people have no idea how to govern themselves. You are complaining about what Gaddafi left behind. So you should be glad he's gone and Libya now has a chance. It would appear that your position is that Gaddafi was a good guy. Or, would you have preferred another prolonged war financed by the Chinese?
Let us not forget that this particular dictator blew up an American airliner killing hundreds of Americans, not to mention the bombing of Americans in Germany.
Also, we have been in Iraq for nine years. In order to make a fair comparison for the long-term outcome, we would have to look at Libya in nine years. Otherwise, we would have to compare it to Iraq shortly after the invasion when Americans and Iraqies were dying in droves every day. And how many Iraqies, many or most of whom were forced to fight, died when we began our campaign of shock and awe? Tens of thousands probably died in the first days of the war.
i think your trying to say us troops did this? if thats the case do you want to show an iota of proof?
Now they have freedom, let's see what they will do with it. Obama never ran as anything but a moderate Democrat, not sure why anyone is shocked.
Beyond that, as Ron Paul often points out, nation-building, extended occupations, and the war in Iraq, are not consistent with conservative principles. Obama took the conservative route. In many ways, Obama is more conservative than many Republicans. And going back to the original point, he kept his eye on the ball and went after those responsible for 911 rather than redefining the enemy for convienence.
