It is currently 04/04/25 5:27 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 6:17 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Terrific commentary that is so so so true even tho it states what is obvious to some of us ~ Sooz 

January 03, 2012 11:25 AM
The name that must not be spoken
By Steve Benen

Bill Clinton left the White House in January 2001, and in the 2004 race, Democratic candidates were tripping over each other to connect themselves to the nation's 42nd president. I remember one September 2003 debate in which literally every Dem running for the party's nomination said they're the rightful heir to the Clinton legacy.

Al Sharpton, after a while, apparently couldn't take it anymore. “I know that within the next hour we'll say that Bill Clinton walked on water,â€



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 6:30 am • # 2 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
Yea, verily, yea!!!!!!!!!!!  That he was permitted to walk freely, is the first major mistake of Obama, and he hasn't stopped paying for it since.  Once you pet the hen thief on the head, Ms. Pelosi, it's a bit difficult to point a finger at the guilty culprit.  Mr. Obama, there aren't many who respect what appears to be a fool who gives away all of his hard earned gains to appear to be "above it all."  Such a fool becomes beneath contempt.  There may be another term at the presidency, but without Bush being held responsible, openly charged and challanged anc convicted, there will never be a requirement of accountability demanded by the American lunatic right wing.   Congress is held at the lowest level of respect in history for failing to do their duty.  Ms. Pelosi told them their "duty" was "off the table."

Gee, what a great lady?Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 8:33 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
I hope your sarcasm emotie referred to the idea that a transfer of political power in the United States should involve the siezure and trial of the prior office holder. That way lies civil war and doom for our democracy.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 11:55 am • # 4 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660

Quote:
Grampatom
I hope your sarcasm emotie referred to the idea that a transfer of political power in the United States should involve the siezure and trial of the prior office holder. That way lies civil war and doom for our democracy
I don't understand your comment, Grampatom. 

Before I "get started," I think I better ask you to clarify if you mean that the lack of accountability and responsibility required of the previous administration by the current administration was the correct way to have handled this transition of power?  Are you suggesting that to have gone for impeachment of GW Bush and many members of his cabinet  for their abuse of power and deceit of purpose would have been an inducement to civil war and our (hypothetical) democracy? 

Are you saying that Obama and Pelosi did the proper thing to maintain a state of unity, respect, safety and a more perfect union for the citizens of our nation, as well as the rest of the world?

Help me out here, please.  Thanks.

jd


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 12:31 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Jeannedeurk1 wrote:

Quote:
Grampatom
I hope your sarcasm emotie referred to the idea that a transfer of political power in the United States should involve the siezure and trial of the prior office holder. That way lies civil war and doom for our democracy
I don't understand your comment, Grampatom. 

Before I "get started," I think I better ask you to clarify if you mean that the lack of accountability and responsibility required of the previous administration by the current administration was the correct way to have handled this transition of power?  Are you suggesting that to have gone for impeachment of GW Bush and many members of his cabinet  for their abuse of power and deceit of purpose would have been an inducement to civil war and our (hypothetical) democracy? 

Are you saying that Obama and Pelosi did the proper thing to maintain a state of unity, respect, safety and a more perfect union for the citizens of our nation, as well as the rest of the world?

Help me out here, please.  Thanks.

jd
I think he is saying all those things, Jeanne.  And he's right.  In your opinion and the opinion of millions of other Americans, Bush was wrong in what he did.  But just as many others felt otherwise.  By the same token, there are millions of Americans who feel Obama is a traitor who should be impeached or imprisioned.  If Bush and his henchmen were to be imprisoned by the opposing party when it took power, how would you prevent the same thing from happening to Obama and his minions at the next change of government?  How often do you think that could happen before the country devolved into a civil war or that nothing but a bunch of unthinking morons would run for the Presidency - oh wait...the last is already happening and that's only because of the current culture of character assasinations of political leaders.  Think of who you would get if they ran the risk of jail.

  


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/03/12 12:56 pm • # 6 
"The name that must not be spoken"

Remember:

BUSH!


it's only after the Republican Party gets their head around their worst failure can they hope to regain any real credibility.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 7:26 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
When you look at the current crop of Republican candidates and think that there is the very real possibility that one of them could become President of the United States, Bush starts to look good.

I can't help but compare this years list of Republican hopefuls with the 2008 crop.  Although many of their policies may not have been to my liking at least Giulliani, MCain  or even Fred Thompson had the qualities to be the President of the United States.  None of this year's group do. 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 7:46 pm • # 8 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
Is it only me, or doesn't it seem to anyone else that if those who have broken the law know they will go unpunished, then there is no reason for whomever is next elected to obey the law?  As long as the corruption and criminality is paying off, and there is acknowledgement and acceptance without consequences, then anybody who throws their hat in the ring is assured the freedom to screw the electorate and desecrate the nation and the world while they have their turn at the public
trough.

Whereas, does it not seem to be the purpose of justice and laws to see to it that those who violate the laws are penalized in some fashion to discourage those who would seek the same position for purposes of corruption to alter their course? 

Why have courts and judges?  Why have legislators?  Why have elections?    Why speak of liberty when all citizens are  subjected to the whims and wishes of the corrupt and the destructive, without a structured process for correction  of injustice? 

Where is there a structure for justice?  Where is there any driving force other than greed and power?
Why not address the nation as "Ye fools!" 

If this corruption must be accepted with never an attempt made at justice, then we have no government.  We have a mob, and we have tribes and cults.  We have slaves and masters.  We have bullshit on oatmeal cookies.  We do not chose to know ourselves for what we are.  We watch the movies and the football games, and the "Real Wives....of Slutville" and we eat our cookies, while we wait for the next s.o.b. to stand before us and tell us how wonderful he/she is, how humble he/she is, and how utterly freaking stupid we would be to elect anyone but them to terrorize and humiliate us.
"Oh, thank'ee, thank'ee great and goodly master!" 

Is it the majority opinion among our citizens that we are so evolved and adapted to lies, theft, slaughter, greed, and inhumanity that there would be none among us who would seek elected office in order to demonstrate their willingness to protect and defend, not only the constitution, but also the inhabitants of these United States?  Are we really so damned corrupt that to be required to work within our own laws, and accept our own, much bragged about,  justice, that we would rather slaughter one another than to behave with respect for some form of legal, structured government? 

What in the hell are we?  That's the first obvious question.

A second, less obvious, but more profound question is, "Why and how long will we be permitted to exist?"

 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 8:03 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Voldemort?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/03/12 8:31 pm • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
Jeannedeurk1 wrote:
Is it only me, or doesn't it seem to anyone else that if those who have broken the law know they will go unpunished, then there is no reason for whomever is next elected to obey the law?  As long as the corruption and criminality is paying off, and there is acknowledgement and acceptance without consequences, then anybody who throws their hat in the ring is assured the freedom to screw the electorate and desecrate the nation and the world while they have their turn at the public
trough.

Whereas, does it not seem to be the purpose of justice and laws to see to it that those who violate the laws are penalized in some fashion to discourage those who would seek the same position for purposes of corruption to alter their course? 

Why have courts and judges?  Why have legislators?  Why have elections?    Why speak of liberty when all citizens are  subjected to the whims and wishes of the corrupt and the destructive, without a structured process for correction  of injustice? 

Where is there a structure for justice?  Where is there any driving force other than greed and power?
Why not address the nation as "Ye fools!" 

If this corruption must be accepted with never an attempt made at justice, then we have no government.  We have a mob, and we have tribes and cults.  We have slaves and masters.  We have bullshit on oatmeal cookies.  We do not chose to know ourselves for what we are.  We watch the movies and the football games, and the "Real Wives....of Slutville" and we eat our cookies, while we wait for the next s.o.b. to stand before us and tell us how wonderful he/she is, how humble he/she is, and how utterly freaking stupid we would be to elect anyone but them to terrorize and humiliate us.
"Oh, thank'ee, thank'ee great and goodly master!" 

Is it the majority opinion among our citizens that we are so evolved and adapted to lies, theft, slaughter, greed, and inhumanity that there would be none among us who would seek elected office in order to demonstrate their willingness to protect and defend, not only the constitution, but also the inhabitants of these United States?  Are we really so damned corrupt that to be required to work within our own laws, and accept our own, much bragged about,  justice, that we would rather slaughter one another than to behave with respect for some form of legal, structured government? 

What in the hell are we?  That's the first obvious question.

A second, less obvious, but more profound question is, "Why and how long will we be permitted to exist?"

 
i think you get the funny rant post of the year for 2012.

no one permits us to exist but us.  And no one will save ourselves from us but us.  It works for climate change and gun control too.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/04/12 4:27 am • # 11 
George W. Who?
[quote]

[i]“Republicans talk a lot about losing their way during the last decade, and when they do they're talking about the Bush years. For Republicans, the Bush administration has become the ‘yadda yadda yadda' period of American history.â€



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 5:18 am • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Wonderful rant, Jeanne.  Full of purpose and idealism.  Also pointless, especially when it comes to Bush. 

First, it would be very difficult to prove he broke any laws - especially since he got to make some of them up.  Second, he didn't act in a vacuum.  Virtually everything he did, from the invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq to the Patriot Act to Guantanamo and torture, he did with the support of both houses of Congress and, often enough, the courts.  Heck, even the current President and Congress is carrying most of them on.  It's true that some of Bush's actions, especially around the military tribunals, were ruled unconsititutional but is that a reason to jail him.  If so, should Obama be jailed if part of his Obamacare program is ruled unconsititutional?  How could you expect Pelosi or any other Democrat to impeach or imprison Bush when they, themselves, were as complicit in his actions as he was? 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 5:21 am • # 13 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Perhaps one day the ICJ will grow a pair.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 10:37 am • # 14 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
I apologize for prolonging the agony of idealism, but this little bitty, teeny weeny, little mud spattered observation by another (possibly) idealist just seemed so on point, I can't resist.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30148.htm


"...and then they came for me, but, by that time, there was no one left to speak for me..." (definitely paraphrased--the computer is being a nerd today and I dare not attempt to get the exact quote out of Google at this moment.  As soon as I can get there, though, I think I'm going to make the entire direct quote my "signature." )


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 10:40 am • # 15 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 10:44 am • # 16 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
Thanks, Oskar.  One would think I would have it memorized by now.Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 10:49 am • # 17 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Jeannedeurk1 wrote:
Thanks, Oskar.  One would think I would have it memorized by now.Image
It's why god invented the internet - us old poops who can't remember shyte. Image

  


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/04/12 10:52 am • # 18 
Al Gore is God???

(Don't tell him that!)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 11:00 am • # 19 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Sidartha wrote:
Al Gore is God???

(Don't tell him that!)
You mean he isn't?
Dayum, no wonder my prayers are never answered.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/04/12 11:33 am • # 20 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
And here i thought Santorum was the name that couldn't be spoken in polite company.  Silly me.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.