Watch this youtube clip of the most recent democrat debates. Most of the video is not relevant but other videos out there do now show the context of the comments I want to highlight.
At least on this issue Mike Gravel can see the forest for the trees and calls out the other stooges on stage characterizing the War on Iraq as solely Bush’s war. At least Obama wasn’t around to vote on it so he has deniability, but then again, he didn’t call Hillary on here propaganda spewing either.
There’s an old adage that “victory has 100 fathers; defeat is an orphan.” Back in October of 2002, when we were riding high on our successes in Afghanistan, Democrat senators in tight races couldn’t sign up fast enough for the joint resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. There was one notable exception: Paul Wellstone. Here’s an interesting article from Reuters on that subject, ironically dated the very same day Wellstone was killed in a plane crash:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/PWawvdh.html
Had the war been prosecuted successfully, everybody would be piling on Obama and Kucinich for not having supported it from the beginning, and the junior senator from New York would be calling it “Hillary’s War.”
I enjoyed watching the debate where all the Dem lined up tp profess their enduring faith in Jesus and their God. Pretty funny actually. Amazing how nothing they do shows any respect for God or morality. But they still proclaim their love for. What a sham.
I enjoyed watching the debate where all the Dem lined up tp profess their enduring faith in Jesus and their God.
Apparently, the Democrats are pretty open about embracing faith as a strategy to draw in more evangelical voters, much to the chagrin of some of the more dyed-in-the-wool secular members of the party.
Here’s an interesting article about their faith consultant:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/us/politics/26faith.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=1be104fa47bce23d&ex=1324789200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
And here’s a very apt quote that sums it all up:
“The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.”
Jean Giraudoux
French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist (1882 – 1944)
http://www.ivorydome.us/index.php?s=race+war
and?
Perhaps “Dio” will come forward and offer an interpretation of what “Vyse” is trying to say.
Who is Dio?
Who is Dio?
He is a liberal who is polite, respectful and can debate his side with out hiding behind name calling and evasion of the subject.
and?
I think he’s just admiting that they will, in fact lie to win an election and continue to destroy the constitution
Thanks for the compliment Cetlic. I don’t know what Vyse is referring to. I am sure if asked he can elaborate. I did not check his link. Sorry.
I didn’t watch the debates for either party and probably won’t. I do not recall the run-up to an election being this early ever before. Why is that I wonder. Corporate money wanting to get the most out of their candidates. Hmmm. In the words of Cousin Eddy, “Bingo.”
Just an observation on my part, but no candidate Democratic or Republican is ever sincere as far as religion, Celtic. They are on the whole very weathly people, politicians. It has been said, “It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than is for a rich man to enter heaven.”
No religious statement should be taken to heart from any pollitician. That’s just used to get votes. It can’t be said one party is truly more religious than the other. Giulianni is as much an adulterer as Bill Clinton. Remember there is no quota for sin. Once is enough.
As far as the lack of religious sincerity of politicians, I agree with Dio to a certain extent. However, I do believe that there are some people on both the Left and Right who at least enter politics for sincere reasons. The problem is that the system tends to corrupt even those with the most noble of intentions.
Money is the mother’s milk of American politics, so every elected official spends an inordinate amount of time raising funds for their next election. Since a cap was placed on individual “hard money” contributions, the most efficient way of collecting that money is by “soft money” contributions from lobbyists and political action committees. And these groups don’t contribute out of the goodness of their collective hearts; political paybacks are expected. And when said paybacks go against the prinicples of the politician, something has to give – and it’s rarely the paybacks. So the cycle begins of getting money for favors, spending the money to hold on to your power, using your power to dole out more favors, which in turn yield more money that ultimately buys more power, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
As far as the “eye of the needle,” I’ve understood that scripture to mean that rich people must humble themselves, relying not on their own wealth or power but rather on God’s grace for their salvation. Is it possible for a rich person to be that humble? Yes, but not very likely I’m afraid.
LOL
Corporate money wanting to get the most out of their candidates. Hmmm. In the words of Cousin Eddy, “Bingo.”
That’s right on the money far as I’m concerned. As far as the rest that is debatable. Certainly things like opposition to abortion, real punishment for criminals, a willingness to confront evil in the world ect. can speak volumes as to the sicerity of religious convictions.
And certtainly many men of power have fallen to lust while in office and out. But Bill Clinton lied about his encounter with Monica, as well as many other such trist’s, not to mention the preversion. The abuse of a good cigar, phone sex etc. But mainly the lying. Tell the truth, what would have happened had that been a republican prez and the same thing happened? Take Jefferson for instance and his bribery scandle. Have you noticed that they rarely mention he is a democrat? They always just say representative Jefferson. If he were republican there would be no end to the mention of republican.
CT is right though about the way Washington coruupts politicians. I’ve been told that every newly elected president is taken to a back room and showed video of president Kennedy being killed from several angles never seen before. Perhaps the same thing happens to congressmen. Anyway it all goes back to corporate interest.
I’ve been told that every newly elected president is taken to a back room and showed video of president Kennedy being killed from several angles never seen before….it all goes back to corporate interest.
Who told you that?
The men in white coats or robes and pointy hoods?
Can I state how hilarious it is to see this guy (or any of you) blame a corporation for anything? Seriously, I sprayed tea out my nose.
On topic: I believe Hillary believes in prayer warriors. She’s certainly dim enough to. She’s a DLC stooge, a corporatist. That makes her a neocon, not a liberal. I won’t vote for a neocon and neither will anyone else with a brain in their head. America is not dead and she won’t see two neocons head to head in this election.
You and Gravel attack her and you do the dirty work of progressive movement. Somewhere along the way, you guys dropped the party line and I applaud you for it.
*** Here ends the only real analysis on this site in months. ***
Can I state how hilarious it is to see this guy (or any of you) blame a corporation for anything?
Why do you say that? Do you really believe that conservative means total support of anything the corps want.
And Hillary is no neocon, she is for abortion and gay rights, welfare big government etc. Perhaps neolib and you’d be correct. At any rate both are liars, and in the pocket of trial lawyers and corporations.
We have no honest government regardless of which is elected. Nothing changes but the retoric, as each governs according to polls. And attitudes are manipulated through the controlled media so as to make the polls fit the desires of lawyers and corps.
If you won’t vote for someone like Hillary then I guess you won’t be voteing as the three that are likely to be the one picked for the dems are all the same. You have Hillary, a muslim and a queer. Perfect examples of what a once great party has become.
Can I state how hilarious it is to see this guy (or any of you) blame a corporation for anything? Seriously, I sprayed tea out my nose.
I’m glad we brightened your day a little, Vyse. But the truth of the matter is, there are no hard-and-fast rules about what positions conservatives (or for that matter, liberals) will take. To assume so is to commit the same type of prejudice that we conservatives are always being accused of.
One local case in point: single-member districts. Bo and I favor the concept, celtictexan doesn’t. There are other examples, such as the Dubai Ports deal, the Harriet Myers Supreme Court nomination, and so-called “comprehensive” immigration reform. Although all these issues were supported by a Republican president, many, if not most, conservatives were opposed.
One of my favorite examples occurred a number of years ago when Pat Buchanan and Bernie Sanders both came out against NAFTA. It would be difficult to find two people more diametrically opposed than those two, yet they were in agreement on that one issue.
Politics do indeed make strange bedfellows if we would only listen to each other rather than assume we know in advance what position a person will take based on their track record.
The unpredictability of people goes beyond politics, too. Back in 1987, when I was a platoon sergeant at the Defense Language Institute, I had a Private First Class in my platoon who loved to box; he was down at the gym nearly every free moment, dukin’ it out in the ring.
When I took part in a walk-through inspection of the barracks with the first sergeant and we got to this soldier’s room, there were 8 x 10 pictures of his heroes hanging on the walls of his barracks room: Mohammed Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson … and Vladimir Horowitz, the octogenarian classical pianist!
The next time I saw him, I asked him what was the deal with the picture of Horowitz among the top prize fighters of this era. His answer was choice:
“Hey man, I like his music.”
The moral of the story: Never ever assume you can predict how anyone is going to react to anything.
Your for single member district’s CT? No wonder you didn’t comment. I’d like to know why you would support that. Vyse is a socialist. I expect that from him/her. But what about you? Are you back now by the way?
Your for single member district’s CT? No wonder you didn’t comment. I’d like to know why you would support that. Vyse is a socialist. I expect that from him/her. But what about you?
Does it follow that anyone who supports single-member districts is a socialist? What about James Madison, who wrote the following in Federalist Paper No. 56:
“Divide the largest state into ten or twelve districts and it will be found that there will be no peculiar interests…which will not be within the knowledge of the Representative of the district.”
Here’s an interesting and quite balanced history of single-member districts I just found. I hadn’t realized that at-large congressional representation was still being practiced as late as 40 years ago:
http://fairvote.org/index.php?page=1724
I understand and share your concern about the abuse of gerrymandering, but in a city like Amarillo, where there were still 43 blocks of dirt roads as late as 2002, yet none of them were in southwest Amarillo (the seat of power), somebody isn’t getting properly represented:
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/040502/opi_adirty.shtml
(You may have to log in to amarillo.com to access this article.)
The most cogent argument I’ve read for single-member districts was posted by jobsanger, a local blogger with whom I rarely agree, on 05/14/07:
If the unity argument held water, then it would be best to have all our senators and representatives to run state-wide. But if this happened, all senators and reps would come from Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and San Antonio, and the Panhandle would be left without representation (or the power that comes with it).
When I think about how little people in the Metroplex and other major metropolitan areas of Texas care (or even think) about the Panhandle, it gives me a renewed appreciation for what it must be like to live in the “forgotten” areas of Amarillo.
Well certainly I would agree on the state issue. But in a small town, and Amarillo really is pretty much a small town, I just can’t see it as anything other than another divisive tool of the multi-cults. Besides, and correct me if I’m wrong, but fair division of taxes as in the road issue has been taken care of through court actions.
I could make an issue of the tax thing as the folks that live in areas that might still have dirt roads rarely pay any tax. But that is another issue.