"To protesters at the Fort Hunt rally, the federal government, a health care bill and their personal interpretation of the Constitution are reasons for everyone to be armed and ready to do battle (although, interestingly, during the Bush Administration's assault on the Constitution with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, turning Gitmo into, well, Gitmo, rendition, etc., we didn't hear much from this crowd). Losing an election is just another justification for political violence."
Read More
The teabagging cons spoke little when w was clamping down on freedom, when w lied about reasons for invading Iraq, when w ran up 5-7 trillion in new debt. But listen to them now with Obama. Amazingly delusional.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People may not have been fully aware until the last 4 years of the Bush Admin. They became aware and that is how Obama won. That's fairly obvious.
ReplyDeleteWith Obama they are alarmed at the changes and the debt. Don't look at me. I bitched about the Bush spending when it was happening! But Obama has excelerated the spending and is expanding the government at an alarming rate.
This has awakened a sleeping population.
We still have Gitmo, and Clinton used rendition. They have not entirely repealed the Patriot Act (Russ Feingold, the only Senator to oppose the Patriot Act---so much for it only being BUSH, dems overwhelmingly voted in favor of it)Next....
ReplyDeleteI have a question and a challenge for you, RG...
ReplyDeleteWould it bother you at all that the Progressive Party is a main supporter of the American Communist Party?
Go to the bottom of the page at the Brecht Forum and read this: "OUR SPECIAL THANKS! The Brecht Forum owes its existence to a broad network of support. Our modest fees cover only a fraction of our costs and we rely on the progressive community for our financial survival."
This is a website that can be reached via the American Communist Party Website.
On this site you will find great articles such as, "The NY Marxist School". They sponsor a great play called, "Marx in Soho", and state that it is a chance for Karl Marx to come back from the grave to "clear his name". Good stuff.
Now, I know that you are confused, but I really don't think that you are a Communist. Were you aware that when you call yourself a Progressive that you are aligning yourself with such great company?
"Would it bother you at all that the Progressive Party is a main supporter of the American Communist Party? "
ReplyDeleteI am not of the progressive party, I am of the progressive definition:
pro·gres·sive
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
I think your kind of nuts if you don't agree with most of the above. Cons are mostly nuts :-)
I understand the definition of progressive, but when you call yourself a Progressive, you are aligning yourself with the Progressive Party.
ReplyDeleteI think alot of people are doing that without understanding what the Progressive Party actually is. Just checking. Basically, you are just a liberal.
How about this RG:
ReplyDeleteThe IMF is giving a stark warning about the global debt and global financial stability.
So much for your European style Socialist governments. The countries cannot sustain the debt that all of the government programs and "wealth redistribution" rack the debt up.
We cannot continue down this path of spending or we will be looking at a financial meltdown that will make this last one look like a sunny day.
All of the programs sound so good but the touchy feely "government should take care of us all" simply doesn't work. It is not sustainable and never has been. History has shown us that.
Funny how you cons are rattling on about the deficit now, but not when w was in office.
ReplyDeleteFunny, it seems ok in the con world to spend 800 billion on defense, and not 100 billion on health care. Crazy world.
It was wrong under Bush, but it is 2x's as wrong now. (2x's being what Obama has spent so far)And who cares if it took the population a while to wake up---at least they are awake now. Not so sure that you are right about no one caring at the time. I seem to recall many, many people speaking out against the spending under Bush. And you know what? A democratic legislature had alot to do with the spending under Bush.
ReplyDelete100 Billion on healthcare? You actually believe those numbers? Since when has a government program EVER come in at the estimated costs? Doesn't happen.
"A democratic legislature had alot to do with the spending under Bush."
ReplyDeleteGreat argument, considering the dems have a near super majority in the Senate and one in the house and a dem president and still nothing gets passed. Why didn't w veto all the things he didn't like? Hmmm... You cons sound foolish using that argument, and thinking anyone believes it. More con propaganda.