Do you seriously think that I think an insane person commited mass murder because of a political map? Prove she used no speech writers during the VP campaign. Oops. I saw the VP debate. She is an idiot. Finally, even if she did write it, none of the ideas are original to her. There isn't a single thing in that article that progressives haven't been saying for years. Finally, none of it matters, since she is part of the royal family. If it is her turn she will be "elected".
Ummm... yes? You just said he did. You blamed Palin for it. Did I say she didn't use speech writers during the VP campaign? I said "she writes her own speeches," just as most non-politicians. As a politician (VP nominee), she was subjected to professional speech writers, just like every other nominee. You saw the VP debate and didn't come away with "Wow, with Biden's years of experience in Congress, he performed quite poorly to this newcomer?" I saw that she wiped the floor with him and even schooled him on the duties of the VP. Progressives are liars... they say they're for the little guy, while filling their pockets with big-biz monies, then taxing the crap out of the middle class where it hurts, and keeping the poor comfortable so they'll continue to have an enslaved voting population. Nothing in the article mimics their behavior. She's party of the royal family, huh?
I do think it's serious. Extremes are an escape of sorts for angry people, a way for them to channel their anger and possibly act on it. Couple that with a government that is increasingly looking like Rome before its collapse, and we're looking at big trouble brewing.
She sure is. Why do you think she was on the ticket in the first place? After Van Buren, the only president ever elected who was not directed desended from the royal family, it has never happened again. Oddly, (not really, since you are aparently entirely sarcasm deprived) the candidate with closest in line for the English crown always wins. Sorry to have to edjumacate you some more.
The Republican party co-opted the Tea Party, not the Koch Brothers or Heritage Foundation. If anything, the Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity and the Heritage Foundation supported what the Tea Party was doing and for. The Republican Party tried to use it to their advantage and then began to change the message. This is why I never join groups... I stopped calling myself a Tea Partier after the Republicans started co-opting it in Richmond, VA. Quick TEA Party Facts: 1. Republicans != Conservatives 2. Republicans do not represent the TEA Party 3. The TEA Party represented Constitutional Conservatism and Free Markets 4. The TEA Party was made up of Democrats, Republicans & Independents 5. Now the message has been muddied and while some Republicans are still utilizing the mobility of the TEA Party, others in the establishment have distanced themselves as political opponents. It's better not to join groups, if you ask me. It'd be nice if everyone were Independent and we did away with the two party system. In Response to your points: 1. The Budget Control Act of 2011? So you don't disagree that it was Obama's idea that originated in the White House? http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...ird-time-president-obama-fibbed-on-sequester/ 2. They had every right to stand by their principles, just as the Liberals do every single day. Give me a break and cry me a river. 3. Obamacare IS a waste of my tax dollars. And you're finally seeing (or should be seeing) it for the facade it really is. Wake up! - - - Updated - - - I can play the same game, then. If not for Obama, we would only have a $10T debt... Unfortunately, as it stands, we'll probably have a $20T debt by the end of his term.
Its no less vicious than it was in 1800. The difference is that mass media makes it more immediate and noticeable. http://itshamiltime.com/2012/11/19/the-election-of-1800-hamiltons-role/ During that election, Hamilton and other high Federalists painted Jefferson and the Republicans as morally depraved atheists and fiery anti-government radicals who planned to set up guillotines on the banks of the Potomac and fill the new capital with blood. Republicans, on the other hand, portrayed Federalists as crypto-monarchists and usurpers of the Constitution. They pointed to the recent Alien and Sedition Acts as proof that Federalists would roll back the Bill of Rights at every available opportunity until they could declare Hamilton president-for-life and, from there, King of America. John adams on Hamilton The [Roman] triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus and the other of Octavius, Anthony and Lapidus, the first formed by Caesar and the last by Octavius, for the purpose of worming themselves into empire...have analogues enough with Hamilton's schemes to get rid of Washington, Adams, Jay, and Jefferson and monopolize the power to himself.... You inquire what passed between W[ashington] and Hamilton at York Town. Washington had ordered or was about to order another officer to take the command of the attack upon the redoubt. Hamilton flew into a violent passion and demand the command of the party for himself and declared if he had it not, he would expose General Washington's conduct in a pamphlet. Thus you see Its proper power to hurt each creature feels Bulls aim their horns and also lift their heels. Hamilton's instrument of offence were libels, not true libels according to the New York doctrine, but lying libels.
Only it's not the same game. Obama never said deficits don't matter. Obama never said, I aim to spend my political capital. Obama never said "iffen yer aint fer us youse is again us" . Bush spent like a drunken democrat for eight years on needless wars and crony tax cuts. Obama is just cleaning up his mess.
Well, we're agreed that we're divided. That's more than just a joke. There have been times when we've had one side in this country saying everything was fine and the other saying nothing was working. Right now both sides do seem to agree that the present situation is untenable and Something Must Be Done. (OTOH, don't all pols always say that all the time?), they just disagree as to what. Once one thing on one side or the other can be shown to manifest a definite improvement I think we'll see a general calming of the waters. My own feeling is that it will be health care. Once that system begins to work properly people will begin to like its benefits, both to themselves and the economy overall. Opposition won't go away, no, and I really hope it never does. Opposition and divisiveness is actually assumed in the Constitution and it is designed so as to utilize rather than oppose it. Like science, we make our theories more exact and accurate by attacking them and challenging inconsistencies. This is the grand mistake the Republicans have made. They assumed the solutions they adopted back in 2000 were right in all respects and have stuck to them. They assumed that opposition was simply wrong and called it RINO, then spent most of their time purging their party of it. Therefore, even though things have suddenly gotten very bad due to their practices, they continue to offer nothing but more of the same. In this way they are becoming increasingly out of touch with BOTH the right and the left. And meanwhile, the Democrats have become more and more Republican. The present healthcare plan, after all, IS the one the Republicans offered, back in the Clinton era. It's becoming increasingly clear that we have one party that represents what most Americans think (the Democrats) and the Republicans, who, more and more, speak for a smaller and smaller minority of extremists who continue to become more and more extreme. This is why we have all the calls now for a third party, because there are literally millions who have sworn they would never vote Democrat who are, nevertheless, not at all in agreement with the present Republicans either.
OK, I'm American and liberal. I can't help but agree with the general ideas she's expressed in this article. However, I've heard nothing specific from her since 2011, except that now she's killing bigger animals than turkeys. This is the problem Republicans are having. Most people agree that we need some reform in the economy, but most don't think that a return to the 1890's is exactly what they had in mind
I am guessing (hoping) that in the next few years we see the extreme right fading back into a moderate GOP that accepts the realities of compromise. This should allow the extreme left stupidity to fade as well....in time we might see a return to basic sanity in our system of Government.
We put Pol Pot in power so why mention him? Its ok when our dictators kill millions but not a "friendly" dictator? First time in my life i used Mother Jones because it was the first link from google that showed my point. I will use whatever source proves my point thanks.
Obama's cleaning up the mess? Is that what the $7 Trillion in spending was all about? Cleaning up the mess? Remember when Obama said this? [video=youtube;1kuTG19Cu_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q[/video] Or this? [video=youtube;SaQUU2ZL6D8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8[/video] Well, if he feels that way... how did we end up here: $17,075,590,107,963.57 from here: $10,024,724,896,912.49? I particularly find this ironic quote, hilarious: "Bush spent like a drunken democrat for eight years on needless wars and crony tax cuts." - Dune Obama IS a Democrat; he's not like one.
A fading back of the "extreme right" would allow the extreme left to bring about the Socialist utopia they yearn for.
lol, with that kind of stance, why not just use Wikipedia for all of your sources? ;] You must know that MJ is one of the most biased news sources for Liberals, no? And where are you getting this nonsense that we built up and supported Pol Pot's rise to power? During the Vietnam War, we were attempting to bomb the Khmer Rouge uprising, at the request of the Nol Government. Unfortunately, the bombing locations General Nol gave us led to the killing of thousands of civilians, which obviously led much of the population in support of Pol Pot's uprising, which was a Communist movement. Pot's dictatorship was gained as a result of our aiding an ally, based on faulty information, but we didn't directly place him in power. We attempted to prevent it, at a request.
But not a drunken one. drunk·en adjective \ˈdrəŋ-kən\ (Medical Dictionary) Medical Definition of DRUNKEN 1 : drunk 1 <a drunken driver> 2 a : given to habitual excessive use of alcohol b : of, relating to, or characterized by intoxication <drunken parties> c : resulting from or as if from intoxication <a drunken stupor> —drunk·en·ly adverb —drunk·en·ness noun Learn More About DRUNKEN Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for "drunken" Spanish Central Translation: "drunken" in Spanish
lol, you get an A for making me laugh, but you still get an F for not recognizing the hypocrisy of your statement. ;]
We started with what? 10 TRILLION, prior to Obama? How in the heck did the right hijack everybody into believing that somehow, the right isn't the guilty party here? It didn't start with Obama, you know.
No, it started with Woodrow Wilson, expanded with FDR, and then it just kept climbing from there. The last time the debt actually decreased was in 1957, but even at the end of Eisenhower's term, the debt went up by a faction of a percent. The last President to leave us better off was Calvin Coolidge in 1928, bringing our debt down by 23.3%. There's a lot of blame to go around.
Oh okay. Thanks for the explanation. I thought they were trying to say it's all Obama's fault. Appreciate the clarification.
People expressed themselves fully during the Vietnam War, believe me! Thousands of people carried banners, marched in the streets, and raised holy hell. You could spot people half a block away and be able to guess whether they were anti-war, or pro-war, simply by the way they were dressed and how they wore their hair. But, no, we didn't have the internet. Yes, the alleged purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of Communism. The great irony is that actually, Communism stopped itself! Communism, National Socialism, and every other "ism" in which a parasite class sucks a subsistence living off of workers and producers has died because of its own inertia, except for Cuba, North Korea, and one or two pisspots in Africa (I think). "Communist" China today is probably even more capitalistic than we are! Well, let's start with the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012...f-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/ And we see in the Washington Times how much of this bloated increase is due to the free welfare-handout policies of President Santa Claus: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/?page=all I wouldn't try to compare the Great Depression and the "great recession" of Idiot Bush and Idiot Obama -- which ENDED over four years ago, in June 2009, according to all the hyperliberal economics analysts, who outdid each other giving President Marvelous credit for ending it with his hooptie "stimulus", remember...? But, hey, let's come down to Earth and I'll make an even better case than that. Look in the employment webpages and/or employment sections of the newspapers in nearly EVERY city and town in the United States, and guess what?! You'll see jobs advertised there! And in most cases, in most places, you'll see LOTS of jobs advertised. Granted, not all of these jobs pay enormous salaries, but there are huge numbers of jobs all over the country nevertheless, if a person will get up off their lazy asses and apply for them.
You are free to use any source you want that documents both parties gerrymandering..... Ah yes the "faulty information" excuse where have we heard that before hmmm...
