Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Coffee Table

Random thoughts. Stuff you would like to share. Go for it.

25 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron, I put a version of this up as well as a bunch of other posts in response to "the game"s responses to "the facts." But, I wanted to put it up here because I think it is worth a read. And, for something written by me it is SHORT!! If people like it, they can read my other posts (the LONG anonymous ones and patriot6 posts in comments posted to "the facts.")

Almost the entire rationale that "the game" uses to prove Joe Wilson is evil is that he is a Democrat and has given money to Democrats. Actually, if I remember my reading, I think he voted for Bush I. But he probably decided (rightly) that Gore and Kerry were the better candidates in 2000 and 2004.

Wilson probably believed his party affiliation was noone's business because it had nothing to do with the "facts" of his trip or the reason he spoke out against this administration's war lies. He spoke out against them because he thought the people should know when the administration was lying to them about the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. Interestingly, in early 2001, both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said Hussein was no threat. But then after 9/11 Rice said we had to take advantage of "opportunities." 9/11 presented an opportunity to con people into going along with an invasion of Iraq. The administration accomplished this by deliberately and deceitfully associating Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists in people's minds -- constantly using the words "Hussein" and "terrorists" in close proximity to each other so that about 70% of the people believed Hussein had something to do with 9/11, although the people in the administration knew he did not.

The memo about "Joe Wilson's wife" was marked secret. It was not to be discussed or disseminated. Rove discussed it and disseminated it. Deliberately, unnecessarily, and with vindictive intent.

Joe Wilson only has one wife. The idea that because Rove did not say her name he did not leak her identity is ridiculous. All Novak had to do was ask someone what Joe Wilson's wife's name was. Such hair splitting is kind of like the argument that Clinton did not have sex with Monica because he did not have intercourse with her. If my husband tried that argument on me under similar circumstances he would not get very far!! In fact he would be in worse trouble than if he had just fessed up to it!! He might very well be dead if he tried to get away with such nonsense with me!!

The "Valerie Plame" or "Joe Wilson's wife" s exactly the same kind of hair-splitting.

My best friend votes for Republicans most of the time, but she is not a fool. She voted for a Democrat this time. Many of us vote for who we think is the best person. I don't necessarily believe a person is a total washout simply because he is a Republican. Of course I think anyone who voted for THIS Bush is a fool.

Bush's campaign co-chair for veterans in 2000, General McPeak, voted for Kerry this time and campaigned for him. He said he would not vote for Bush again if he were running against Grandma Moses, who has been dead for years.

"The game" writes that Wilson said in 2005 he would not vote for a Republican. But that was in 2005, which doesn't mean he had not voted for Republicans in the past. However, if I were him after the way they have tried to destroy him and his wife since 2003 simply because he pointed out that the administration was lying in its case for war, I would never vote for another Republican, either. But that doesn't mean he never voted for Republicans before. As I said, I think he voted for Bush, Sr.

Another friend of mine who, like me, used to vote for some Republicans ALSO says she will never vote for another Republican after what this bunch has done, and not after almost all Republicans in Congress and way too many Democrats have supported their evil agendas.

I sure won't vote for as many Republicans as I used to.

Oh for the days when you could be a "good" person whether you were a Republican or a Democrat. A good person who simply had a different way of looking at things!! A different idea of how problems could best be resolved.

Garrison Keillor wrote a great article called "We're not in Lake Woebegone any more" about the good old days when Republicans were people one could respect. Some Republicans still are worthy of respect, but then there are the ones who have most of the power now. They deserve no respect, and in fact have garnered the contempt of most of the world. Their supporters are mostly delusional or willfully ignorant. Or else they are flat out evil.

Would someone who had leaked a CIA operative's identity under Clinton or Gore have gotten such leeway for unethical behavior by people like "the game?" If 9/11 had happened under Gore OR if Gore had lied us into a war from which members of his family were profitting personally, OR if Abu Ghraib had happened under Clinton or Gore who can seriously believe they would not have been impeached long since and would probably be in prison for war crimes by now?? Rush, Hannity, et.al. would have screamed every day until it happened.

Why was there a special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater, a business deal in which the Clinton's LOST money but not Harken, in which Bush engaged in insider trading and made $800,000 rather than the $300,000 he would have made if he had sold his shares without access to inside information? Of course the SEC chairman, appointed by his father, said there was not enough evidence to proceed. I wonder how hard he looked, because even without looking there was plenty of evidence.

But, in spite of the "liberal press," with infinitely more justification for impeachment, Bush has not been impeached or tried for war crimes. More is the pity!!

1:40 AM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the link to an article on the Wilson's written by their next door neighbor. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-24-wilson-neighbor_x.htm

He includes in this information the fact that the CIA says Valerie was not responsible for Wilson going to Niger. But, they will not allow HER to talk about it.

1:45 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron,

Interesting read is a new book - War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reviewed in the latest Texas Observer, July 8,2005, by Robert Jensen, who has written Citizens of the Empire.
Also, New America Foundation, not to be confused with Project for a New American Century, has a website - www.newamerica.net. Sherle Schwenninger heads a program there for a global middle class with interesting info and ideas for U.S. Foreign and Economic policies.

2:32 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron,

BTW, the Texas Observer is available for reading at the Roswell Public Library.

2:36 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous DK said...

Your site is a waste of space. Check out mine.

2:45 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

"anonymous" hard hitting logic...
"I think he voted for Bush" even though he is a registered Dem.

Anyone with a 3rd grade education can not understand this... "Actually, if I remember my reading, I think he voted for Bush I. But he probably decided (rightly) that Gore and Kerry were the better candidates in 2000 and 2004."

Present the text of Rice and Powell making these comments, not you just making them up...

I'm glad you know that Rove had "vindictive intent"

Answer this: If Republican's are so dumb and suck so much...do they control the white house, senate and house of representatives???

The only answer you can come up with is there are a lot of stupid people. You could never say that Dems have no ideas and do not share the same view point most American's do.

4:11 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

Bill Clinton Pardoned Nat'l. Security Leaker

No wonder 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been silent as a churchmouse about Karl Rove while her Democratic colleagues call for his prosecution for leaking classified information about CIA employee Valerie Plame.Turns out - in the only case in U.S. history of a person successfully prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press - Hillary's husband pardoned the guilty party.

On January 20, 2001, President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence. In 1984, Morison had been convicted of providing classified satellite photos of an under-construction Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly.
He received a two-year jail sentence.
In pardoning Morison, Clinton dismissed the advice of the CIA.

Last week, when Sen. John Kerry called for Mr. Rove to be fired, with Hillary standing by his side, she nodded silently. When reporters asked her what she thought of the alleged Rove outrage, she offered only, "I'm nodding."
No doubt while remembering her husband's pardon of Mr. Morison.

4:22 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

Gee DK, maybe you should take that Dale Carnegie course again. Not too impressed with your sales pitch.

6:47 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

Game, I dont think you want to play the pardons misdirection game. The facts are really not on your side. You're a school teacher? Ok lets play the quiz game. What president pardoned his predecessor who left office in disgrace. What president offered 24 pardons to 6 people who aided an enemy of the US? He did it almost immediately and not scores of years later after at least some kind of penalty had been paid. He later pardoned 18 others in matters not related to this affair. Who did they work for when they did it?
While you do that we will get back to the issue at hand, namely who leaked secret classified information from the white house and why does the president seem to have to wait to find out what his own staff have done. Doesn't sound like a strong leader to me.

7:02 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For "the game."
I do not make things up. I read newspaper articles from all over the world for about 3 hours a day. I have so much info in my head from all that, I do not remember the details of all of it. IF it is very important, I look it up again to make sure I have the details right. I dd not think this was important enough to check the facts -- whether Wilson had voted for any Republicans. That is one of the things that proves Richard Clarke was an expert. You keep on people from previous administrations who worked for the "other" party, ONLY if they are considered to be extra good at their job. It is pretty much accepted by most people that people of the other party can be good people and patriots who work in the best interest of their country no matter what party is in power.
The video of Powell saying Iraq was not a threat and Condi Rice saying Iraq was not a threat in 2001 were actually shown during Conyer's hearings on the Downing Steet Memo, which you should have watched. Also, John Pilger first mentioned them in "The Iraq War, the Big Lie."
Type in "The Big Lie" and John Pilger in a google search, and you should find that article which will give the exact quotes by Condi and Powell that were later shown at the Conyer's hearing. There are probably transcripts of the Conyer's hearings as well. I watched them.
Another person (combat infrantry vet in Vietnam) today told me how much he enjoyed "With Trembling Fingers" by Hal Crowther. He said he wished everyone would have read it before the election. It is my very favorite thing. Do a search for it as well. Learn something. OR, you could do a search for Marlowe Cook "Former Republican Senator for Kerry, frightened to death of Bush." That is another almost favorite thing.
Some are speculating now that there will be anohter pre-prosecution pardon of Rove, just as Bush 1 did with Weinberger. Both Bush's look out for themselves before they look out for the country.

7:37 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For "the game" again, and anyone else who wants to read what my hero, Ike and many other military heroes have said about greed and war, this is the link to "The Words of War Heroes Versus the Words of Bush/co." It involved a lot of research.
http://oldamericancentury.org/submit_0061.htm

I just pasted the link in search. It worked.

I do not think all Bush supporters are stupid. I think many of them are willfully delusional. I blame the "liberal" media for making it so easy for them remain that way.

7:49 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a link to refute all the right wing talking points on Rove and "Plamegate." I recommend "the game" and everyone else read it. It was linked from "the daily kos." It links to articles that refute all the lies, AND, coincidentally, it also links to articles that say Wilson voted for Bush 1 and gave money to W's campaign in 2000. Not all of the links still work, unfortunately, but if you want to do the work of searching for the articles you can no longer link to... Below is a treasure trove of links to articles that refute right wing talking points.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php

8:20 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what the Baltimore Sun? wrote today? about WHY the PLAME affair was important:

..."Containment was clearly working. Iraq had putatively possessed such arms for years, and had not used any of them since before the first Persian Gulf war. Iraq, moreover, had no means to launch a biological or chemical attack on New York or St. Louis or Oshkosh, Wis. It posed no threat to the United States.

There were two ways of getting around this obstacle... The first was to argue that Iraq might now ally itself with al-Qaida. Baghdad had the deadly goods; al-Qaida could use its sneaky, cunning means to deliver them against American territory... There wasn't, however, a shred of evidence to support it.

The second way...was to bring up nuclear weapons...the idea of Saddam Hussein having a few nukes in his arsenal - even if he did lack an intercontinental ballistic missile to shoot them our way - was enough to worry anyone. President Bush remarked that he didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

This then became the capstone...the argument that lent urgency to the march to war. It was the nuclear option that put the wheels in motion, because delay could potentially be fatal.

The White House presented two pieces of evidence that it said pointed to nukes. There was an Iraqi order for aluminum tubes that supposedly might be for use in a centrifuge, though experts quickly threw cold water on this idea. And then there was the story about Iraq going shopping for "yellowcake" uranium in Niger. President Bush brought it up in the 2003 State of the Union speech But, again, it was Mr. Cheney who was most enthusiastic about beating this drum.

In March 2003, just before the war broke out, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, convincingly declared that the Niger story was a fake. But the war clouds had gathered by that time, and it wasn't difficult for the administration to press onward; maybe some particular papers had been faked, but this was a detail, and - better safe than sorry - it was full speed ahead.

That July brought the article by Joseph C. Wilson IV, the diplomat and husband of Valerie Plame, in which he wrote that he had gone to Niger and reported back to Washington - a full year earlier - that the story was groundless. What this did was to demonstrate that the excitement over Iraq's supposed uranium purchases in the months leading up to the war wasn't a mistake, or an exaggeration. It was a lie.

This was Mr. Wilson's sin. The nuclear threat was the only justification for the urgency of war, and not only was it baseless but because of what he wrote, it was now clear that the architects of the war knew it was baseless.

Here is the motivation for the outing of Ms. Plame, a CIA agent. It appears that the White House was not intent so much on punishing Mr. Wilson as on discrediting him, by suggesting that his trip had been some sort of junket arranged by his wife. Mr. Wilson's revelation, if true, exposed the dishonesty at the core of the administration's maneuverings over Iraq. And of course it was true.

This is the context in which the continuing investigation by the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, must be viewed. This is not simply about the Karl Rove brand of politics taken too far, but about the fabrication that launched a war.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.wilson24jul24,1,5383336.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

2:09 PM, July 27, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

Is quoting stuff from liberal papers in the even more liberal editorial sections really pass as factual information for you? or anything from "theleftcoaster" It is truely amazing that anyone would think that was fair and balanced information. All an intelligent person can do is stand there with his/her mouth wide open.

Citing quotes from liberal sources does not make any point other than you found other people with your bias.

3:03 PM, July 27, 2005  
Blogger The Donkey said...

The game has more readers here than at his own blog. The Donkey likes to quote the white house resident in saying, "leaks are bad things".

Laws, national security laws were broken over two years ago. How long before Baby Bush will get the results of the ongoing investigation of this treason? What is a Turd Blossom? Why would the Roswell Daily Record print such a word in their comics section? Why would Baby Bush call Rove a turd Blossom? The Donkey knows this is not a christian name? What is baby's nickname for Condi Rice?

5:40 PM, July 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For "the game." The links from the Daily Kos and the Left Coaster are from many sources such as the London Guardian and from the transcripts of what Cooper said as well as the Newsweek article about all of it. The sources are not, necessarily left wing even though the outlets are. For the simple reason, of course, that right wing outlets have no interest in telling the truth about what a right winger has done -- their interest is in covering for him and the president. And, that is what they do. Only the left sources try to bring out the truth if it is not flattering to the right. Who is your main source?? Rush Limbaugh?? Sean Hannity?? Joe Scarborough?? Name me their left wing equivalents on the air of our "liberal" media!! But, I suppose to you those sources are "balanced."

Average Joe makes some points worth discussing. I have not seen you make any. You just propagate the same old spin of the right wing. And, according to you, Joe Wilson is evil because he has given money to Democrats. He has also given money to and voted for Republicans, but is not likely to do that again any time soon. You say he is a liar. There are no liars anywhere who tell lies that compare to the lies constantly told by Bush, Cheney, and Rice.

The long and short of all of this is that the administrtion LIED us into war. Rove was part of it. In fact, he and Cheney are the masterminds of almost everything that goes on in this administration. And they sought revenge against people who pointed out their lies. There is a "Plamegate" ONLY because of their larger crime. Which was lying us into war, from which many in this administration, unconscionably, are profiting financially.

In case you don't remember, they "outed" agents working in Pakistan as well just as a distraction. They leaked the name of a Pakistani agent working to find Al Qaeda people. And when they leaked his name, the Al Qaeda people ran. NOW one of them has been linked to the London bombings.
Below is the latest on that.

http://www.radarmagazine.com/web-only/politics/2005/07/tick-tick-boom.php

Of course, I suppose the above is a "left" British source, so has no credibility, whereas everything from "right" sources, whose obvious interest is in covering for Bush, are wholly credible.

Rove was fired by Bush 1 for leaking smears to Novak -- a right wing columnist, who, I suppose, writes the "gospel truth" according to your lights.

Joe Wilson waited for the administration to tell the truth about the Niger story. When they didn't he DARED to come out in the open and say Bush et.al. had LIED about the Niger info and thus the Iraqi threat and had pushed us to war by fake "evidence." Evidence he and they both knew was fake, and one week later the White House ADMITTED (after Joe's column) that they should not have used (because their evidence was bogus.) They never tell the truth unless forced to. We would not have known about Abu Ghraib, for instance, if Seymour Hersch would not have brought it out into the open.

SO, after Wilson dared to tell the truth about the Niger yellow cake, they immediately set out to discredit Wilson, just as they set out to discredit anyone else who stands in their way. Rove was behind the smears on Hightower and McCain. He was fired by poppy Bush for leaking smears to the same columnist, Novak. It is WHAT HE DOES!! But we are suppossed to think it was an "accident" this time??? Bush said if anyone in his administration was involved in THE LEAK (therefore Bush must have considered it a leak), he would fire that person. Thinking, of course, the story would go away and they would get away with yet more lies and obfuscations, and that the media would let it go, as they have let almost all of this administration's lies go.

The administration does not attack the "facts" these people bring out because they can't, so they attack the people. They "kill the messenger."

Even honest Republicans journalists have said what Rove did was wrong.

Anthony Wade -- a born again Christian who is very left wing wrote this:

"These are the facts.

1) Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of "ANY INFORMATION identifying a covert agent" is illegal.

2) In the released Cooper email, it is quite clear that Karl Rove stated that Joseph Wilson's wife was an agent working for the CIA on WMD.

The rest of the garbage you are hearing is nothing but window dressing to distract you from these two facts. Once you put these two facts together, you can reach only one conclusion and that is that Karl Rove is a traitor to this country and he needs to be prosecuted for treason against the United States of America. Period, end of story. What is convenient about these two facts is that you can summarize them simply and apply them as an answer to any spin you might hear. To summarize:

Karl Rove committed treason against the United States of America by violating section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, by revealing the secret identity of a covert operative to a reporter."

Anthony goes on to list all the "spin" that is out there.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21925

7:06 PM, July 27, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

"Is quoting stuff from liberal papers in the even more liberal editorial sections really pass as factual information for you? or anything from "theleftcoaster" It is truely amazing that anyone would think that was fair and balanced information."

Game. I'm a prophet. I knew exactly what you were going to say.Whats NOT the liberal media for you. The networks? CNN? MSNBC? The times, the post, bla bla bla bla bla. I know, townhall, newsmax, Fox news and the weekly standard. As someone who has been in the media for over 30 years may I make a suggestion to you. Try reading them ALL and watch to see which ones turn out to be right. See which pieces of each turn out to be valid. Be just a little open minded or you put your self at risk of becoming tool. If you just believe anything because it is the "Conservative View" or disbelieve something just because it is the "Liberal View" you are then setting yourself up to be brainwashed. I can promise you a lot of people are...on both sides.

9:24 PM, July 27, 2005  
Blogger Dedanna said...

One of your favorite subjects Ron, and nothing to do with any of the above (this is coffee table, right?):

Health Care: An Issue of National Competitiveness

Have a good one,

3:12 PM, July 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since this is the coffee table & there are other issues than the war and Rove's outing of Valerie Plame, I was just wondering what y'all thought of Tipper Gore's idea about Parent Advisory labels on CDs/tapes, etc. I'm not for censorship at all, but do think parents should have some idea of what their kids are reading, listening to, and seeing. I remember buying "Purple Rain" when my kids were young because I did like Prince even though I couldn't understand everything he was singing. The lyrics were included and whoa-I decided I didn't want to play that album in the same house with my children. What I can understand of the rap music is so hideously offensive, that, yeah, I think warning labels should be attached. In fact, it would be nice to make it a misdemeanor for people to blast this junk from their vehicles where other people are forced to listen to it.
I am totally against censorship and book burning, but a little common sense would be nice. My favorite author is Anne Rice who did a series (Sleeping Beauty Trilogy) which dealt with sado-masochism. It was beautifully written but sick. I think people have the right to buy and read the books, and that they could be in public libraries, but, hey, put them in restricted sections so kids can't check them out.
Being a huge Harry Potter fan like my kids, I just read the newest book. Whoa! I was as upset as my teenaged son by some of the content and the climax of the book. I have heard that some reviewers have complained that the content of the books has become too mature. Well, duh, the kids aren't 11 years old anymore. They're 17, but beyond that the books are getting more and more violent and major characters are getting killed. I just saw a photo of Robbie Coltrane who plays "Hagrid" giving a copy of the latest book to a six year old child and have seen where lots of dimwitted parents give these books to their little kids or take them to see the movies without pre-viewing them first. What about a little parental responsibility? The Harry Potter series is fantastic and is really getting children to read, but the books haven't been for kids under the age of 11 or 12 since the second book.
Anyway, talked to a local children's librarian about the possiblity of posting some kind of warning that the content of the book might be traumatic for younger or sensitive readers and that the parents should preview the book and/or read it to/discuss it with their children. Well, I was told that they are not book reviewers and it was indicated that that would be seen as a kind of censorship. What do you think?
Also, Harry Potter is not just for kids any more than "The Lord of the Rings" is. If nothing else, they're wonderful allegories. Think of Voldemort and the Death Eaters as being like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (and/or Cheney and PNAC)just as Sauron & Co. stood for Hitler/Stalin. Horror and fantasy are genres that often represent nightmare realities that children and adults find it difficult to deal with in real life, so they deal with their emotions in what is a safe way, reading and watching this kind of thing.---The DemoCat

5:06 PM, July 28, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

I have no problem with warning labels. I do think ultimately a teenager will listen to what they want. I would think trying to explain the world to them would be better than trying to hide it from them. They should be prepared to recieve it in the proper way and only mom and dad can do that job. Pretty much applys to your Harry Potter et al. As far as the loud music goes..well I like loud music myself so I will recuse myself from that one.:-)

11:28 PM, July 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Defense of Liberalism
by John Ford, Korean War veteran

For the last fifty years or more the American public has been bombarded with attacks on political liberals. It is about time that these attacks are answered. Spiro T. Agnew, that great American who barely avoided prison, sneeringly spoke of "pointy- headed Liberals" and "do gooders". These and other epithets were used to deride and degrade the efforts of those people who have tried to improve the lot of ALL Americans. Simply reading a dictionary, [something the right-wing seems unwilling to do] gives the true definition of a political liberal. For instance; my dictionary says a political liberal is

"One who advocates more individual freedom and democracy and believes that the government can and should have a positive effect on the lives of the people." Further definitions say that liberals are favorable or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by government protection of civil liberties. Liberals favor or permit freedom of action; especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression. And, encourage representational government rather than aristocracies, monarchies or dictatorships.” There is lots more in that same vein, but I think that pretty well sums up the definition of a political Liberal. Throughout the history of this nation and the world, the conservatives have always defended the status-quo. That is what being a conservative means. At the time of the birth of this nation the conservatives wanted independence from Britain because they didn’t want King George to be able to horn in on their business profits. After independence they offered George Washington a crown to be king of the United States. Of course, he refused. The conservatives also tried to set up a system of landed aristocracy. I can see it now: the "Duke of New York" or the "Margrave of the Ohio Valley," or maybe the "Count of New Mexico". The liberals of that time opposed this. The conservatives of that time also thought the first ten amendments to the Constitution were unnecessary. These same people thought that only MEN who owned a certain amount of property should be allowed to have the vote. Again, the liberals opposed that idea. They said that any man, no matter how poor, should be allowed to vote in all elections. Later the conservatives defended slavery and called Lincoln Republicans "radicals". In the slave states a plantation owner was given an extra vote in state and local elections for every male slave he owned. That is the main reason public education in the south was almost non-existence. Child labor laws were condemned by the right because they said they would destroy the nation’s ability to compete in foreign markets. Maybe you remember seeing photos or drawings of little boys in coal mines and little girls working in cotton mills.

Women's suffrage was condemned by conservatives because women were considered unable to make any serious decisions. Workplace safety laws and the Pure Food and Drug Act were opposed by conservatives. Again because they said laws like that would hamper our ability to compete were interfering with 'free enterprise". The conservatives called the Social Security and Wagner Payser Acts "socialist". They were violently opposed to the Civil Rights Act. One piece of legislation opposed by the right has had a tremendous positive effect on the nation. If you don't already know, it is the Veteran's Readjustment Act or the G. I. Bill of 1944. Hundreds of thousands of young veterans were paid by the federal government to further their educations. The bill passed Congress by one vote! I would bet that you or many people you know have benefited from that legislation. Veterans received educations and many, including myself, were able to buy homes with government subsidized, low interest loans. Their taxpayer-funded educations enabled them to secure higher paying jobs. Over their lifetimes the higher wages those better jobs provided meant they paid much more into government coffers in taxes than they would have had they not been given an education. They have repaid the country a thousand times in taxes and in other ways for the investment in the people that bill provided. So, the next time you hear someone sneer at Liberals you might consider the source.

10:19 AM, July 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you know, Ron, I wasn't really talking about teenagers and warning labels re: books like the Harry Potter series. I was talking about parents who don't take the time to preview books/music/ movies and just let their kids have them. Some parents must have the idea that if a movie is rated PG instead of R that a four year old will not be affected by it. The dementors in the Harry Potter series, who are awful creatures that suck the happiness out of people, would scare the daylights out of most little kids, but how many people took their young children to see "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"? But, hey, I saw people taking their small childen to see "Interview With the Vampire", too, and that is definitely not a children's movie. All I'm saying is that there should be some kind of warning labels to help parents know which books, etc. to preview, so they don't just assume they're OK for children of all ages and I'm glad you agree. (I posted a review of the last HP book on Amazon, so maybe that will help some people.)
As for loud music, I like loud music, too, so of course that's why I'm not yet 50 and "deaf" (smile face). I'm talking about lyrics that are graphic-sexual in nature, violent, degrading to women, minorities, etc., and which advocate killing cops, which describes a lot of the rap music blaring from people's car windows. If they want to turn it down and roll up their windows, fine, but I don't think it's necessary to expose other people to it.--The DemoCat

4:53 PM, July 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't people meaning some liberals and most conservatives understand that people hold views somewhere along a line from far right (nazism/fascism) to far left (socialism/communism)? Most people hold both both "conservative" and "liberal" views.
Are they conservatives, moderates, or liberals? Yet, we generalize.
I now consider myself a liberal and am proud of it, yet I'm not a radical. I get tired of people like Average Joe condemning liberals like myself and my friends because they think we're all crazy immoral baby killing dope smoking tree hugging atheists.
For instance,I'm pro-environment because I happen to enjoy nature, love animals, and think they have rights, too. I have allergies, as do my children, and a child with asthma, so I'd like to have clean air to breathe, water to drink, etc. Wolves and polar bears are some of my favorite animals and I don't see any reason to endanger them by drilling in the ANWR and dumping oil refinery emissions into the air a few hundred miles from the North Pole (global warming!)when we should be developing alternative energy sources.
I agree that the scrub wood and brush should be cleared out, but let's not use the Healthy Forest law as a way for the lumber industry to make huge profits by decimating our old wood forests.
I'm not a vegetarian, but I wouldn't wear fur for any reason. Leather is one thing because we eat cows and why waste the skin?. We don't eat minks, though.
I would never buy anything but dolphin free tuna, but that doesn't mean that I agree with blowing up fishing boats or some of the other things the eco-terrorists do. I believe in Gandhi's/ MLK's non-violent protest methods, not violence and anarchy yet because I call myself a Liberal, people like Average Joe, The Game, and Axle think I'm evil and unchristian. I don't get it. I think other like minded liberals should explain their social values views and why they have them in this forum instead of just quoting sources and attacking conservatives. I've done it myself, but I do know it's counter-productive. These guys desperately need to be re-educated by someone other than the Rush Limbaughs of the world.--The DemoCat

4:21 PM, July 30, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Want to find out the political affiliation of your favorite celebrities?
For Democrats-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrities_with_Links_to_the_U.S.Democratic_Party

For GOP-
http://www.iridis.com/gliva/List-of_Republican_celebrities

I was shocked to see some of the people I thought would be Dems/Libs
that are Republican Bush supporters-Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson- even the Olsen twins, my goodness! And LeeAnn Rimes, too. Good thing I'm Liberal and a forgiving person or I'd have to stop being a fan. Can't wait to tell my 23 year old son who is a Democrat and a huge LeeAnn Rimes fan, though, just to get his reaction.

5:11 PM, July 30, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was told by a friend who went to check out the celebrity sites that the links didn't work-oops! Looks like one got cut off halfway through and missed a letter in another Will try it again.
For the Iridis site (GOP)
http://www.iridis.com/glivar/List_of_Republican_celebrities
For the wikipedia (Dem) site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrities_with_links_to_the_U.S._Democratic_Party
Hope the Bushies are proud to have Marilyn Manson, "Justadumb Simpleton", and Britney Spears. The latter is a real good role model for young girls, etc.-NOT! After all, she got engaged to her present husband just prior to his old girlfriend giving birth out of wedlock to their second child.
We get Robert Redford, etc. Well, that's all right with me. Smile face.

4:44 PM, August 04, 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home