Mitt-mentum?

Posted by Long Island Weegie B.

Before we embrace another Republican president, let's just remember what happened under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the 107th, 108th and 109th Republican led Congresses. In my opinion Bush and Cheney have lived up to the term "Worst. Presidency. Ever."

How quickly we forget while listening to the Fox Lies. The propaganda really does work.

What happened on W.'s watch (and I am just going from memory):

September 11th, two unjust wars, thousands of Americans dead by war or by natural disaster (remember a little place called Louisiana where dead Americans were floating in the streets and left to die on rooftops, in attics, and their homes?)

Then there was Terri Schiavo.  Congress made a mockery of the woman's privacy, death, and dragged her family through the mud for months as I recall. I find this particularly hypocritical and offensive as a government intrusion into a private discussion.

Hmm... what else?

Revision of posse comitatus, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of eminent domain rights. With the changes in eminent domain the government can now take your property and give it to a private corporation.

It used to be the government could only take for a public good. Before, if Corp A wants your house, you'd say give me a million dollars and then negotiate until you get what you want and they get what they want. Now, if Corp A wants to build on your property they just get the governor to take it, pay market rate (not necessarily what it is worth), and gives it to them. Not hard to understand, your rights of property ownership just disappeared. Cases are still open in Florida about this.

What else...

...financial collapse, recession, depression, a nosedive in unemployment, the bank disaster (all of which we are still fighting to emerge from), the GM bailout, the housing collapse... outsourcing to China... the only thing he could have done to top it off was to fire a nuke at Russia.

Obama? He is trying to give everyone health care, green energy, tax the super rich, and rebuild the middle class. Yeah, yeah, he let the gays get married, he's black, and America is a deeply racist, bigoted country. I get it. But if we are really just interested in the economy and jobs, what does that have to do with anything?

For some reason, we are all genetically engineered to attack the word SOCIALISM. Well, socialism is a very good thing in moderation. We have Social Security, Medicare, and any number of other socialism based enterprises like the Armed Forces, departments of water supply, sewer departments, departments of traffic, etc. Last I checked, nobody wanted to disband the Army because they function as a socialist organization.

Socialism is no better or worse than Capitalism, Communism, or any of the other 'isms' out there with the exception of Libertarianism. Libertarians are social Darwinists and should be bludgeoned on sight. Most Corporatists are Libertarians in their basic design, except for eating those government bailouts when they fail.

In Socialism (which the US is not), the people own the means of production. Sounds good to me. The Hoover Dam: government built and people owned. Niagara power project: government built and owned by the state of New York. Tennessee Valley Authority? Same thing. In New York alone, George Washington Bridge, Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, Whitestone Bridge, Midtown Tunnel, Central Park. These are all products of Socialism.

Social Security, yes that too. It is your money, owned by you like a bank account so you should be very aware of what the government is doing with your money... because it is YOUR money.

I've gone far longer here than I wanted, so all I want to say is think before you jump to embrace an ideology that has failed for 30 years. Think before you blindly believe the patented lies that are being delivered by the corporate owned media. You see, that was deregulated too. Now the news is no longer fact based as much as it is entertainment based opinion (some call it lies).

Definition of the Week

lib·er·tar·i·an (noun): just a fancy catch-all word [these days] for an asshole who’s pompously aligned him or herself with an impressive-sounding but entirely BS political movement in an effort to lend legitimacy to and to outright excuse selfish, asshole-ish behavior.

Brought to you by Chez Pazienza in describing Fox News hack John Stossel.

Compassionate Conservatism Redux

Former George W. Bush speech writer Michael Gerson once defined the phrase 'compassionate conservatism' as, "the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself." We all know by now how well that worked for the Bush administration.

Liberal commentator Joe Conason, noting Bush's policy of tax cuts, wrote in 2003 that "so far, being a 'compassionate conservative' appears to mean nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative." Similarly, former President Bill Clinton described the message of compassionate conservatism as: "I want to help you. I really do. But you know, I just can't" or similar variants.

The true definition of compassionate conservatism can be summed up as, "Yeah, that's a shame... wish I could help out but everyone should take care of themselves."

I've been in a self-imposed media blackout these last few days due to the September 11th anniversary 24 hour news cycle (I don't need to see that again) and decided not to watch last night's CNN Republican Primary debate because I saw all I needed to see during last week's debacle. Why would I want to subject myself to the motley crew that is the GOP nominees again? Unless they've changed their minds about climate change or evolution, or actually looked at the numbers to realize they're just flat out lying on the Recovery Act while hypocritically benefitting from it, there was no need for any more self-induced stress.

But then I heard (bad news travels fast) that a hypothetical question was asked of Ron Paul regarding a 30 year old man who chooses not to pay for health insurance, then suddenly needs it - what's to be done? And the audience yelled to "let him die." I couldn't believe it. So I had to see for myself.



More than anything else that has transpired in the world of American politics and the divisiveness we've gotten accustomed to this last decade or so, this truly breaks my heart. What has become of us as a society? Or I should rephrase, what has become of the Republican party as a societal faction of our population? This is the pro-life party? This is the party touting their Christianity? It's absolutely disgusting. And this comes on the heels of last week's audience strongly praising Rick Perry's execution record as Governor of Texas.

There are some criticizing the editing of this video because it cuts off Ron Paul's answer to the question. But the video isn't about Paul's answer, it's about the callousness of the audience. If you listen closely, Ron Paul says "no" when asked if society should let the hypothetical patient die before explaining about pre Medicare days and churches taking care of the sick, blah, blah, blah. Someone in the audience yells "YEAH!" at the thought of letting the patient die to hoots and hollers and it sounds like they're mostly in agreement. I'm sure if the dipshit audience member who yelled had a member of their family who was in that situation, he would think differently.

I also can't dismiss this as just two or three jackasses in the audience. They ALL applauded at the notion of letting the hypothetical patient fend for himself. It's not just two or three jackasses anymore. It's become mainstream GOP thinking. And if the nominees and the Republican leadership feel the need to kowtow to the Tea Party, then shame on them.

Just another example blowing apart the myth that both parties are the same.

Cartoon of the Day