Söldnerland Schweiz: Alpenkrieger als Exportware
18 minutes ago
Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)
the royals enjoy an 80% approval rating at the moment
========================================
Clearly the money the Queen spent on public relations' experts after Diana's death was well spent.
My original comment was about how we value work/labor, rewarding some with fortunes for doing 'work' that many of them readily admit they'd do for nothing, while labor that is necessary for the survival of the species (food harvesting, as one example) gets paid peanuts.
Why you are so offended by that observation makes me wonder if you're not Paris Hilton (a trust fund baby) or Princess Michael or Hilda Ogden.
And (OT) no, I'm not an anarchist, and would be very happy if rule of law were restored in the US. This nation was founded on the concept of 'Veil of Ignorance', which applies not only to morality but economic fairness and equality of all citizens. That doesn't happen when great wealth is amassed in few hands and passed down within families upon the amassers' deaths.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)
Politically Correct Inquisition. If the statement a person makes is made in a manner in which these members of PCI do not like they will bully and brutalize the other person and even insult their long dead family members to force their own thoughts upon the writer.======================
Like you, with this OT ad hominem attack?:
"Actually, I think you may be one of those who are part of the PCI. Are you one of the officially appointed or are you one of the self-appointed as I have seen in other forums? Its not good to be part of the PCI even if you phrase your critique quite nicely."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Antonin Scalia Blasts Health Care Reform Decision, Says Supreme Court Is Not 'Political' (VIDEO)
Monday, July 30, 2012
you've a lot more faith in the people than I, for if it's not OJ or some other salacious pop BS, the short attention span of Americans only serve the interest of the elite.
===============================
It's not faith; it's just knowledge of a few truths about the American people. All westerners, really, all people who live in industrialized capitalist nations. It's knowledge that you probably know, as do the establishment elites and politicians: The American people hate losers. The American people will forgive almost anything and anyone, except those who don't fight back.
I think that's the real reason that Jimmy Carter lost his bid for reelection.
And it's why Al Gore lost in 2000.
Both let others get the upper hand, dictate the terms of the campaigns and the elections, and in Al Gore's case, the terms of the outcome. Gore trusted that the rule of law would be the order of the day.
I don't think Gore anticipated or believed that what happened outside of the legal process mattered or would affect the outcome. He picked the wrong man (Warren Christopher) to face off with Jim Baker. While Gore, Christopher and Democrats were playing baseball, Bush, Baker and Republicans were playing football.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Antonin Scalia Blasts Health Care Reform Decision, Says Supreme Court Is Not 'Political' (VIDEO)
Talk of Democratic politicians having no spines are greatly exaggerated, just like Obama's timidity is myth: He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base.
Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty gives lip service to all populist issues (like jobs, civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare, WallStreet reform, environmental and energy issues, etc.).
If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you'll wear the opposition down.
Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish Clinton's machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the RoveMachine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching BushCheney off the table, have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?
Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.
The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.
Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters') to understand that Democratic politicians have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)
Whatever the Queen and Charles have, it's an entail. The last entail, too; they live off the greatest expense account ever created. Whatever personal money they have (and the Queen's personal worth has been estimated around $500 million), it's not like she (or Charles) made it on her own, from scratch. Wouldn't we all like a deal where just by being born into the Royal family, you get an income for life, all expenses paid, get to live in any number of palaces, wear the crown jewels, have people waiting on you hand and foot and serving you the finest food and wines and organizing your day/life/closets, all paid for by the taxpayer.
Whatever William inherits from Diana's estate, where do you think Diana's money came from? (Hint: The Royal family) Same with Charles' money - It's inherited income, from the Duchy established in the 1300s, to fund the life of the heir to the throne.
The British are paying an awful lot of money to watch other people enjoy the best that life has to offer (if you have all the money in the world).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)
If you knew any migrant workers, you'd know that like fishermen, they get paid by the volume or weight of what they're harvesting. And like fishermen who don't get paid hourly and don't get paid for the time they've spent setting lines/nets/traps, repairing the nets, icing the hull, etc., migrants don't get paid for the time they spend tending the crop. And harvests are gambles, particularly in the unsettling weather patterns of the past years.
Out of whatever money they get for harvesting the crop, they get charged by their 'wranglers' for expenses (room, board, transportation, etc.).
Whatever they earn is an annual salary (or bi-annual, if they can land winter crops, and transportation costs), and must be stretched to support them from one harvest to the next harvest.
But as a law-abiding and patriotic American, if you knew any of these diseased, criminal migrants, you'd turn them in, right?
/sarcasm off
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Antonin Scalia Blasts Health Care Reform Decision, Says Supreme Court Is Not 'Political' (VIDEO)
Sunday, July 29, 2012
I did it again.
That should have read, "and she joined the conservatives on the MEDICAID portion of ACA (that states may opt out) a couple of weeks ago."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
Thank you for replying. I respect your doing that.
May I ask you just what it is that you're not buying? What, specifically, do you believe is a scam?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Antonin Scalia Blasts Health Care Reform Decision, Says Supreme Court Is Not 'Political' (VIDEO)
ElenaKagan is the GoldmanSacks seat, not to mention that she was the 5th vote in rolling back Miranda a few weeks ago, and she joined the conservatives on the Medicare portion of ACA (that states may opt out) a couple of weeks ago.
Obama's spin when trying to get both Kagan and Sotomayor (a lackluster intellect if ever there was one) confirmed was that they'd be effective at countering the conservatives arguments when it came to trying to pull Kennedy over. It hasn't happened; Roberts, Alito, and Scalia wield far greater political warfare skills. And it was Kennedy who worked on Roberts for weeks, to bring Roberts over to the conservative side on ACA??
In claims against big business, Sotomayor (herself a former corporate lawyer) wrote the dissent in a 2-1 decision that ultimately favored victims' families. This was concerning the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 off of LongIsland. Sotomayor wrote, "The crash hadn't occurred in US territorial waters, therefore victims' families shouldn't have had the right to sue for extra damages." She wrote that the judges who disagreed with her were ignoring legislative history and earlier case law," saying "their decision was a legislative policy choice which shouldn't be made by the courts".
That's conservative talk.
In 2002, on the issue of abortion, Sotomayor upheld Bush's 'Global Gag Rule' (the policy of withholding funds for international groups that offer family planning information and services, including abortion).
On the issue of discrimination, she frequently rules against plaintiffs. For example, in 2004, she ruled against African-American corrections' officers who said they were retaliated against for filing discrimination complaints.
Sotomayor certainly doesn't look at the law through the prism of how it serves the interests of the People.
And Sotomayor was with the Scalia-Thomas-Alito faction that boycotted the SOTU - Sotomayor was in Guam, addressing a group of students and swearing in new members of the Guam Bar Association, a first for a US Supreme Court Justice (are you kidding, Sonia, missing the most public showing of US democracy and the 3 branches of government by leaving the US for a 5 day trip to Guam?).
We need more Earl Warrens. What we don't need are politicians looking to avoid a fight, and want to work "in a bipartisan manner". Republicans declared war on Democrats years and years ago, while Democrats keep trying to "make nice". Democratic politicians have gotten fat and lazy, feathering their own nests while Republicans have made long inroads into furthering corporate interests.
Whether Democrats are inept or corrupt, the result is the same: They have failed to protect the interests of the 99%. And all that they're putting out this campaign season is warmed-over Republican-like policies when drastic populist steps need to be taken.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Antonin Scalia Blasts Health Care Reform Decision, Says Supreme Court Is Not 'Political' (VIDEO)
This goes to show that Justices should be term limited.
=======================
Term limiting justices is a wretched idea.
The Senate, in point the Democrats, failed us. Alito, Roberts, and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate. And Democrats voted to confirm Thomas (52-48), Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22) and Scalia (98-0).
And Obama's appointments are really nothing to defend. Both Sotomayor and Kagan are to the right of the justices that they replaced (Souter and Stevens).
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/09-0
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4074
http://www.theroot.com/views/sotomayor-liberal-enough?page=0,1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/18/AR2009071801787.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/07/17/abcs-greenburg-sotomayor-not-liberal-activist-almost-conservative
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/06/28/nprs-totenberg-kagan-sotomayor-not-nearly-liberal-predecessors
http://hispanic9.com/true_to_hispanic_beliefs,_sotomayor_is_not_a_liberal.htm
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Scott Brown Touts Praise For Ad From Conservative Blog That Claims Obama Is Muslim
The real answer to the Scott Browns really should be, "Ok, whatever. So what?"
It's dispiriting to see that Americans, of all people in the world, we with a statue at our gates welcoming people from everywhere in the world, are even engaging in defending against Obama being a Muslim because it makes it that there's something wrong if he were, that there's something wrong with 1.5 people in the world (Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
It's not that there aren't deniers - It's that the deniers aren't controlling the policy or paralyzing the governments' response.
Other nations are working on the problem of carbon and alternative, clean and sustainable energy; we're not, or not in any serious or significant way. And we're the main polluters causing the problem.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
Not really, but I can appreciate your confusion over my comment.
Only here in the US are climate change deniers taken seriously by the media and given any semblance of consideration in the national discussion of the issue. They've been afforded such consideration that they've successfully paralyzed the government from going with solutions.
The poll that you're talking about supported that 90% of people in the UK still believe in global warming. Their belief as to the degree and severity of global warming was what had been worked on for weeks and months with misleading articles about the hacking of climate scientists' email that, if you look at the link I provided, you see just how many articles were published, over weeks and months, in an effort to chip away at people's confidence in their belief about the fact of climate change - Despite the fact that what the email revealed really didn't affect the fact of climate change or the cause.
I'd love to see a poll about how many of those people who were polled actually read past the headlines of those articles.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
You lost them at "meditate".
;-)
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
The ONLY people who are still debating the reality of climate change (much less the cause of it) are in the US.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
For a compelling and very sobering discussion of climate change and what we're facing:
Gwynne Dyer, "The Geopolitics of Climate Change".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
Please tell us something about yourself, your life, how you've come to form your belief that global warming is fiction, etc. Seriously.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)
What leeskyblue said.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)
At a time when the government can take out 2nd Amendment rights' people with drones, you'd think they'd become 4th, 5th 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment rights' people.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change
James Burke of "Connections"-fame produced an excellent program about 30 years ago called "After The Warming" that you can see online. It's done as if it's 2050 with Burke looking back over the history of the world's climate changes and the effect that cyclical warming and cooling has had on the development of animal, vegetation, and civilization. Up until the industrial revolution, and how what's happening is man-made, how we know that it's man-made, and how fast it's happening. In less than one generation, human civilization on the planet is going to irrevocably break down. Mass die-off of species, specifically humans, from a whole host of assaults (famine, drought, disease, pandemics, wars, etc.).
If every Fox viewer saw it, they might be convinced, but it wouldn't matter; it's too late.
What's happening politically now is that the world leaders are arranging for the time when chaos will be the order of the day. The loss of civil liberties, setting up for martial law, endless wars, etc. I think they're giving the 'haves' one last bite at the apple, to amass as much wealth as they can, to move their families to high ground for the coming bad times. The US is positioning itself much like the Roman Empire did, and will take what it wants through military might - Not for we ordinary mortals, mind you, but for the survival of the elites.
I think it's obvious that the decision was made some time ago, like several decades ago, that the US wasn't going to respond and try to avert the catastrophe. Too many people to get on board, too much work, and altruistic work at that. It was a cynical and corrupt decision, with greed controlling it, with the likes of Jim Baker and the Bushes making fortunes by the decision (in oil). War industries were another venue for amassing great wealth, and that's the path that Cheney took.
In the late 1990s, when the bubbles were taking shape, I estimated that those who didn't have a net worth of, at least, $250,000 wouldn't stand a chance, but I'm revising that upwards to $5 million. That's just bare bones, to keep from dying from an inability to purchase food and water, and keep a roof over your head that you don't have to trade watch duty with family and friends to keep marauders out.
Bleak? You bet. But we have to start talking about it and demanding politicians address it.
Watch "After The Warming" with your families and friends. It's somewhere to begin.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Mitt Romney: Iran Strike 'On The Table' If I Were President
Mitt Romney: Iran Strike 'On The Table' If I Were President
================================
Romney's position is no different than Obama's. Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said as much on 'This Week With George Stephanopoulos' this morning.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Marketing the Munchies: How Fast Food Companies Target Stoners
Thanks for the info. Now I'm wondering if the calorie count is accurate, and if it isn't, have they just bought themselves some grief with the government for failing to comply with regulations. Now that would be an interesting follow-up article.
Back in the day where I live (university town), supermarkets' cookie aisles looked like war zones late on Saturday nights.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Marketing the Munchies: How Fast Food Companies Target Stoners
Calls to Loud Mouth to confirm this strategy went unanswered, and its website makes no references to weed. But the answer is easy to find if you know where to look.=====================================
In fact, it's right there on the back of the burrito: 420 calories.
Ok, what am I missing? What about "420 calories" is a reference to marijuana?
I'm not part of the weed culture so I don't know what special attraction words like "toasted" would have on someone who had just smoked a joint, but as someone who eats (and as a fan of cooking shows), I could go for a "toasted" snack after reading this article - A slow-roasted pork belly sandwich on a "toasted" bun, with some crunchy slaw, perhaps?
I had to stop reading Lawrence Sanders' novels many years ago after gaining 15 lbs. in about 6 months. His main character was a retired police detective who would construct Dagwood-like sandwiches and consume them as he pored over grisly murder case files in his apartment late at night. I challenge anyone to read more than a few pages of Sanders without feeling peckish and raiding the refrigerator.
Is it just me or does this entire article appear not to have been proof-read? Between the non sequitors and mixed metaphors, it reads like the author wrote it while stoned.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Illegal Front Yard Garden: Canadian Couple's Kitchen Garden Targeted By Authorities
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Lock-step thinking, following outmoded laws that ignore the reality of our lives in 2012.
Where is the leadership that is educating the public about what's on the near horizon if we all don't begin using our property to grow food?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Romney's Olympic Gaffes, Obama's Small Business Comments Mean 'Absolutely Nothing', Rendell Says
What's hard to believe, impossible actually, is that the Establishment Elites didn't put Romney in as a shill.
I mean, really, Romney and Obama are the best that both parties could come up with? Of course Obama looks better by comparison (although both would be corporate shills, Obama does the spin-talk better). But how did Romney even become governor of Massachusetts with such poor political speech savvy?
In a nation of more than 300 million, this is it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Dawood Military Hospital Scandal: The Most Shocking Photos And Testimony
We're not in Afghanistan for anything having to do with terrorism, although our foreign policy, using our military for corporate acquisition of the world's resources, is creating terrorists and putting American citizens in peril.
The official objective in Afghanistan has been kept from the American people:
"The war in Iraq was very very clearly about oil, as was the war in Afghanistan. The oil pipeline that was planned (in Afghanistan), the best security for that was an occupation."
"If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan and you look at our bases? Matches perfectly. Our bases are there to solve a problem that the Taliban couldn't solve. Taliban couldn't provide security in that part of Afghanistan -- Well now that's where our bases are. So, does that have to do with Osama Bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. It has everything to do with the longer plan, in this case a strategy which I wouldn't necessarily call neoconservative, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology which says, 'If you have military force and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country's needs are paramount'. It's the whole idea of unilateralism, of using force to achieve your aims."
-Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel whose assignments included a variety of roles for the National Security Agency and who spent her last 4 1/2 years working at the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxI3rSLDO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII
Not long ago, Rachel Maddow walked the dusty, garbage-strewn streets of Afghanistan with RIchard Engel to see what exporting US-style democracy means, and what US nation-building actually builds. Watch this to see where are our tax dollars going, and learn how we are not "nation-building", not making us safer, and not helping the Afghans or building their nation at all (or a democracy). Learn how this has all been just a huge rip-off of the American people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR5BHnN__5M
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
Dawood Military Hospital Scandal: The Most Shocking Photos And Testimony
US-scandal in Afghanistan isn't just at Dawood Military Hospital.
Not long ago, Rachel Maddow walked the dusty, garbage-strewn streets of Afghanistan with RIchard Engel to see what exporting US-style democracy means, and what US nation-building actually builds.
Watch this to see where are our tax dollars going, and learn how we are not "nation-building", not making us safer, and not helping the Afghans or building their nation at all (or a democracy). Learn how this has all been just a huge rip-off of the American people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR5BHnN__5M
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Dawood Military Hospital Scandal: The Most Shocking Photos And Testimony
I have not seen the hearings yet, but I can find nothing in any of the reports I've read, from the Christian Science Monitor to the WSJ, to indicate whether conditions at Dawood have changed.
If no one has been fired or replaced, if the same people are running the hospital and working there, it would seem that the abuse is ongoing.
Does anyone here know?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
I've heard every one of these criticisms before, and they don't change a thing for me.==================================
To expect radical change, in our current political climate - and with our system of checks and balances - is childish.
The inevitable insulting name-calling -- Those who don't agree with you are "childish".
The only coalition building that has occurred in the last 40 years has been Democrats caving to Republicans, moving the government so far to the right that
In an atmosphere like this, you don't try to reason with Republicans -- You fight them, with every Parliamentary trick in the book (if Democrats won't pull them, Republicans surely do), and by educating the public, by defending against the wrongful attacks, claims and lies that Republicans have made since Reagan about liberal policies and legislation.
That's how you grow the electorate, i.e., bring more voters out as happened in 2008 when 10 million more voters (new and returning voters turned out for Obama than any other presidential candidate in history) because they believed he was that CHANGE candidate we'd been waiting for. You increase the number of Democratic voters - That's how you win elections.
But that is not what the DLC-controlled Democratic politicians are interested in doing. They don't want real Democratic policies, populist policies and legislation, to pass. Because Democratic politicians work for the same corporate powers-that-be that Republicans do.
Believe it or don't.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
To begin with, I'm a liberal Democrat and not a Tea-bagger.
Don't attribute words, comments, arguments to me that I've never said nor believe.
I have NEVER said nor is it my position that Romney shouldn't release his tax returns. Of course he should, as should every person running for public office. Most particularly those politicians who are running for offices where they will be writing tax laws and determining revenue and budget policies.
For Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to call for Romney's tax returns after refusing to release their own (Congress writes the tax legislation; a president just signs it) is the height of hypocrisy. Especially when Pelosi's own actions when she was Speaker of the House were a highly questionable conflict of interest and insider trading.
But beyond that, you're in violation of HP policy:
The Huffington Post promotes a receptive, transparent and civil atmosphere for comments and users. Critical, in-depth and intelligent discussions and debates are encouraged and the best of these are highlighted in various ways, such as through the Community Pundit program. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with other community members, the author of the post or staff members as long as those opinions are respectful and constructively add to the conversation. However, this community does not tolerate direct or indirect attacks, name-calling or insults, nor does it tolerate intentional attempts to derail, hijack, troll or bait others into an emotional response. These types of comments will be removed from the community where warranted. Individuals who consistently or intentionally post these types of comments will be warned and, if necessary, excluded from the community.
Be yourself, only yourself, and just one of yourself. Don't misrepresent others, don't spread mis-information, don't create multiple accounts. If you do, you will be removed.
If you disagree with another commenter, provide an argument on the subject with facts and citations. Discuss the issues and not the commenters.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Neither, but I am not posing as something I am not.
======================
Neither am I. I've yet to see you offer anything to these discussions but OT lies about commenters, personal attacks and insults. You've refused to support your specious claims, one being your insistence that the GOP got legislation passed into law with no Democratic votes. The old lawyers' adage applies to what I've seen of your commentaries' contents:
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack.
You're in violation of HP policy:
The Huffington Post promotes a receptive, transparent and civil atmosphere for comments and users. Critical, in-depth and intelligent discussions and debates are encouraged and the best of these are highlighted in various ways, such as through the Community Pundit program. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with other community members, the author of the post or staff members as long as those opinions are respectful and constructively add to the conversation. However, this community does not tolerate direct or indirect attacks, name-calling or insults, nor does it tolerate intentional attempts to derail, hijack, troll or bait others into an emotional response. These types of comments will be removed from the community where warranted. Individuals who consistently or intentionally post these types of comments will be warned and, if necessary, excluded from the community.
When you disagree with someone, provide an argument on the subject with facts and citations. Discuss the issues and not the commenters.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Friday, July 27, 2012
Not only was the scale of Hoover's 'private files' different (something in the neighborhood of under 200 folders of documents on, mainly, high-level government officials/politicians), the light shined on government spying by Church committee generated legislation outlawing such government activities and intrusion.
The argument that I've been hearing from neocon and neolib supporters of these kinds of government abuse these past couple of decades ("This is very old news") is weak and idiotic. Even if it had been true that it was "old news", so what? How does that diminish the seriousness of it and affront to the Constitution?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
It's stil not admissible,
====================
Even if that were true (it's not, as evidenced by the government's prosecution of Thomas Drake, J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, and others - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-01-29/news/0601290158_1_saic-information-technology-intelligence-experts), it's about fishing expeditions and using the information obtained to harass, bankrupt and pressure anyone who is out of favor with the government (or any agent of the government with an agenda) for any number of reasons having nothing to do with the safety or security of American citizens.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Agness, let's communicate.
I was speaking in terms of western values ('New World Order', and all that rot), and while I'm not a Brit, I am an Anglo-phile.
In an effort to try to build bridges, I looked at some of your other comments to find somewhere we might connect. You said this about an article on HP about a Vancouver man sought in dog beating death: "Well, I can't read this, but I can say that I once saw my step-father beat a dog and I've never forgotten it. Crimes like this demand jail time and a permanent registry, like the one for sex-offenders."
Do you see any parallels and why, as an American, commenting on people who make fortunes doing what is extremely enjoyable and luxurious instead of compensating laborers well who actually labor doing loathsome and difficult work and that really is more important to all of our survival, it might be my business?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)
What a life.
How we compensate people is completely backwards. In this case, we're talking about a family of people who are, essentially, models. They pose in front of cameras in expensive clothing and jewels (which they get to keep), play games, go to top notch entertainment venues and eat and drink the finest vittles in the world.
And those who perform back-breaking work picking vegetables in the hot sun we pay below minimum wage or lock them up indefinitely before deporting them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Business Owners Disapprove Of Obama's Job Performance: Poll
Neither were Reagan or Clinton or JFK or Eisenhower or Roosevelt businessmen. Or GHWBush for that matter. And W was as failed a businessman as it gets.
To be fair, Obama worked both as a corporate employee (Business International Corporation) and for a law firm (Sidley & Austin).
Government is run by people who, overwhelmingly, have no business experience. And that's not a bad thing.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
It was Regan that eliminated the fairness doctrine in the media, and allowed concentration and monopolies over news casts.
===========================
Yes, it was Reagan who eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, which Clinton could have reinstated.
But not only didn't Clinton reinstate it, he consolidated conservatives' gain and hold on media with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Democratic and Republican poIiticians are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their CorporateMasters.
Think of Democratic and Republican politicians as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. Or like at the annual company picnic, the manufacturing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.
Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were.
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.
Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".
Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 1percent. No protesting, rallying, marching, begging, imploring, wishing, pleading with Obama is going to move him off of that. If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateMasters of the universe, and he'll be handsomely rewarded with paid seats on corporate boards for the rest of his life. He'll just hand the baton off to a Republican for the fleecing to continue.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
One example of failure on women's economic conditions - Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' lists of his "accomplishments" and has gone unchallenged because to explain the ridiculousness of it as an "Obama accomplishment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.
To begin with, claiming Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievement is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfeller) picking up a hitch-hiking Obama right before he crossed the finish line and saying Obama won the Le Mans. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.
Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:
By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislation, the problem the legislation is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislation would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressional efforts. Or, something else.
With Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislature address a problem (statute of limitations for filing equal pay discrimination lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should've been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex discrimination". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For the filing of an equal-pay lawsuit.
And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporations to women, and Democrats work for corporations just as Republicans do).
If you want to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter then you're going to have to take the blame for not following it up immediately with legislation for transparency in pay. Being able to find out what everyone else is getting paid. It's a joke without it. It's like taking you to a Michelin star restaurant, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in your face, but not letting you eat anything at all.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
And women's issues?
Obama and Democrats have done a horrible job as women's advocates. Let's look at three of the most important issues affecting women - Reproductive choice, economics and children/families.
'Kids Count' Report: Child Poverty On The Rise - And it's not just in the past decade, but for the past 30 years children have been losing ground, more living in poverty, not getting educated, job training, and more.
Census figures for 2011 show poverty rate jumping to highest level since 1960s.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point. One example would be Barbara Boxer.
In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticut against newly independent JoeLieberman. Privately, working behind-the-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinton were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchlesinger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman. She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contraceptives to r@pe victims, and instead of dodging Lieberman, dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.
During the Bush-Cheney administration, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."
In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorically, "If Republicans win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republicans' agenda as Republicans have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/Democrats' 2008 agenda?" If what Democratic politicians did during the BushCheney years is any indication, no. Let's look at some of the alleged champions of liberals' issues.
BarbaraBoxer has been a terrible champion of liberal issues, but only those paying attention know this.
For example, as a member of Congress, you can't just be for or against something (like abortion) when it comes up for a vote. You have to be meticulous and actively work to set up the conditions surrounding your vote, to make sure it counts. Your 'yes' vote means nothing if there are more 'no' votes to cancel your vote/voice out.
Knowing that, what did Boxer do the entire 8 years of the BushAdministration? She effectively went on sabbatical. She wrote murder mysteries ("Something I always wanted to do, if I ever had the time"). She, of course, took her senatorial salary all those years.
Boxer's support of JoeLieberman in 2006 exposed Boxer's very 'conditional' support of a woman's right to choose (and her general level of ignorance)
http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/24/the-boxer-meltdown/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/gwu-study-yes-the-stupak-amendment-would-end-coverage-of-abortion-services-over-time/
Fairly soon, Roe and overturning it is going to be moot with all that Republicans have managed to get Democrats to "compromise" on, making getting an abortlon impossible. As it is now, you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
And as far as the chronically ill, health insurance ≠ medical treatment .
People who voted for Obama and Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment. That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment. Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.
Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did.
Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it). ACA Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies
Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:
Pity WallStreet's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they're now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay. One example is JoelGemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.
Obama's healthcare legislation is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry. It's one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.
The health insurance industry provides no real service. All it does is take money out of the system. It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.
Dr. MarciaAngell, a proponent of SinglePayerUniversal healthcare, testifying before Congress as to the reason our health care system is in such a shambles:
"It's set up to generate profits NOT to provide care. To pay for care, we rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to the sickest patients and limiting services to the others. And they cream roughly 20% off the top of the premium dollar for profits and overhead. Our method of delivering care is no better than our method of paying for it. We provide much of the care in investor-owned health facilities that profit by providing too many services for the well-insured and too few for those who cannot pay. Most doctors are paid fee-for-sservice which gives them a similar incentive to focus on profitable services, particularly specialists, who receive very high fees for expensive tests and procedures. In sum, health care is for maximizing income and not maximizing health..."
ACA does nothing to change that.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
One way to take much of the energy out of the opposition to repealing DADT is for the president to issue an executive order which would have the effect of getting people used to it so that when the vote does come after the Pentagon's report at the end of the year, deflating hom0phobes' worst fears.
WIth a stroke of a pen, Obama (as the Commander-in-Chief) can go a long way to healing some of the problems in this country in many different ways. It's good for gays, it's good for the military (we're having problems retaining troop strength, and gay soldiers skills' sets save all soldiers' lives), it's good for the war effort (it is "war time", or so we've been told often enough), it's good for the American people, and it's good for the world.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Barack Obama, Gay Rights Groups Struggle Over Democratic Platform
White House dances around President’s failure to ‘evolve’ on marriage equality
Obama's Closest Adviser on LGBT Issues (WH Aide Valerie Jarrett): 15-Year Old Justin Aarberg “Made a Lifestyle Choice”
Obama didn't repeal DADT - Congress did. Obama could've ended DADT for the duration of his term in office with an executive order. And while DADT was suspended through executive order, Congress could continue to "work on" repealing its legislation, and the various court cases challenging DADT could also work their way through the judicial branch of our government.
Even after Congress passed DADT, its implementation was delayed and hinged upon the judgment of the Pentagon. During that time, gay soldiers were still being separated from military service and afterwards, Gay Military Members Have Tough Time Returning To Service
In May 2010, the House and a Senate panel passed a plan to repeal DADT, but with the usual slick out-clause or backdoor -- The plan was always to kick the can down the road as long as possible, keeping Gay Americans disenfranchised and politically active as long as possible.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-28/politics/gays.in.the.military_1_larger-defense-authorization-bill-repeal-white-house?_s=PM:POLITICS>
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Any two things look the same when viewed from far, far away. It's when you get up close that you notice the differences - differences that become very personal if you are an immigrant, LGBT, a woman, or a person suffering from chronic illness. These differences, while seemingly inconsequential from far away, are so very *real* to the people they directly affect.
===========================
Absolutely true.
Obama's Broken 2008 Immigration Promises Create Dilemma For Democrats -- Obama is set to deport more people in one term than Republican predecessor George W. Bush did in two.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost Read more...
The Dark Side Of The Obama White House
Yet you're voting for Democrats that write and pass legislation and govern as "me, me, me Republicans".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)