0
0

For those of us who recognize the truth


 invite response                
2011 Jun 12, 12:33pm   10,741 views  63 comments

by marcus   ➕follow (6)   💰tip   ignore  

Kinda choice, right ?

Comments 1 - 40 of 63       Last »     Search these comments

1   marcus   2011 Jun 12, 12:34pm  

Source:reddit link to

"How I feel about politics in the US"

http://imgur.com/23eS1

2   elliemae   2011 Jun 12, 1:06pm  

Wait - I've been accused of incomprehensible comprehension skills - and being a free thinking, bleeding heart liberal social worker, I'm gonna take a leap of faith here and make an uneducated guess...

Do you mean to tell me (and everyone else) that it doesn't matter whether one is repub or demo, the rich get richer?

So all these people who blame libs for everything are just angry blowhards? Go figure.

3   terriDeaner   2011 Jun 12, 1:13pm  

elliemae says

So all these people who blame libs for everything are just angry blowhards? Go figure.

Easy now elliemae... that knife cuts both ways...

4   Done!   2011 Jun 12, 1:22pm  

The Republicans and Democrats can't come to the phone right now, they are getting a prostate massage from Daddy Warbucks.

5   elliemae   2011 Jun 12, 1:27pm  

terriDeaner says

elliemae says


So all these people who blame libs for everything are just angry blowhards? Go figure.

Easy now elliemae… that knife cuts both ways…

Sure it does, I've made a few comments in defense of my views. But I don't bring up lib v conservo on every post, nor do I attack people for their conservative views. I do make fun of faux opinionews, tho.

I don't blame everything on the republicans, I do blame a chunk on presidents cheney & boosh. I blame the recession on greed.

And I want the tv Taxpayer promised. ;)

6   B.A.C.A.H.   2011 Jun 12, 3:24pm  

It's because the vast right-wing conspiracy has set up frame jobs on Spitzer, Strauss-Kahn, and now, The Honorable Congressman Weiner.

7   johndavis   2011 Jun 12, 10:09pm  

The cartoon figure tells a truth: we really don't have a successful left-wing party in this country. (We have plenty of left-wing parties, but they win few votes.)

There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, most voters don't critically evaluate candidates or policies, and don't make an effort to inform themselves, which leaves them easily manipulated by sophisticated campaigns that play on knee-jerk emotional reactions and name recognition. Such campaigns cost a lot of money, and guess who has it?

Second, for centuries most Americans have had a tendency to identify with the haves rather than the have-nots. I imagine this has its roots in the economic opportunities of a frontier, the lack of solidarity with immigrants and newcomers whose language or religion are different from everyone else's, and the fact that most American farm families were in fact running family businesses. The tendency to think like capitalists goes way back, and that partly explains why there are more self-identified right-wingers than self-identified left-wingers in this country. That pulls both major parties to the right.

8   tatupu70   2011 Jun 13, 12:13am  

EightBall says

There is no longer a “reasonable” choice and their adamant pro-gay and pro-death positions are going to continue to send otherwise reasonable people off the cliff on the opposite side.

With that statement, you've pretty much taken yourself off the "reasonable" list.

9   EightBall   2011 Jun 13, 12:43am  

tatupu70 says

With that statement, you’ve pretty much taken yourself off the “reasonable” list.

How is that? Many people are opposed to abortion and euthanasia - are we all unreasonable? Is it unreasonable to think that parents should know if their children are having a surgical procedure? Apparently the so-called "pro-choice" crowd thinks it is so important to protect ONE "choice" over the rights of parents and are willing to throw common sense out the window. I don't give a crap if people want to be gay or not but it is a single-issue for many people that drive them into the hands of the republicans. Is it reasonable that if this is your "hot button" issue that you automatically dismiss any and all democrat fiscal policies?

With the state of the economy, the focus should be on how to get people back to work and not whether Adam and Steve can get married. States are being sued because immigration laws aren't being enforced and are passing their own laws. Boeing is being sued by the NLRB because they decided to build a new production facility (and create new jobs) somewhere that the unions don't like. Democrats would have a cake walk if they would just stick to their principles and quit pandering to their fringe. They are not just giving ammo to the neocons they are loading their guns for them!

10   tatupu70   2011 Jun 13, 2:19am  

EightBall says

How is that? Many people are opposed to abortion and euthanasia - are we all unreasonable?

Of course not. Calling those with different viewpoints "pro-death", however, makes you appear unreasonable.

As to the "gay rights" issue, I think equal rights pretty much falls into the Democrats' principles.

11   EightBall   2011 Jun 13, 3:08am  

tatupu70 says

Of course not. Calling those with different viewpoints “pro-death”, however, makes you appear unreasonable.

I guess that makes me unreasonable - it is done!

12   Done!   2011 Jun 14, 3:27am  

Oh I see, if I don't tow the Liberal line along side you, then I'm dooming Elizebeth to basement with out her Red Stapler.

Well it's not like the Democrats or should I say Obama is using her, anyway. She's just the fruit salad off on the side, next to a bad plate of humble pie. She's just there to make it look like this administration cares.
She's the only one that does, and that's why they keep her teeth in the Dragon's keep.

13   EBGuy   2011 Jun 14, 3:39am  

Choice is an illusion.
Don't be so pessimistic. My fellow Californians, open primaries are coming.

14   deb   2011 Jun 14, 4:42am  

The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) is a private corporation owned by 57 of the world's most prominent, privately owned central banks. The world's 150 or so central banks are all privately owned (via shares) by the world's largest financial institutions, which are themselves privately operated.

The BIS is above all international laws. It in fact guides international policy through the manipulation of currencies, through the coordinated efforts of its central banks.

In other words, world government already exists. It is the BIS. That most of you reading this do not know this, that you still follow the paradigm of republican vs. democrat, is a testament to the artful ability of the individuals behind the central banking system to distract the masses through the media they control, and to keep the masses ignorant.

Objective, independent sources for further reading: Joan Veon, Niki Raapana

15   Bap33   2011 Jun 14, 5:54am  

EBGuy says

Choice is an illusion.
Don’t be so pessimistic. My fellow Californians, open primaries are coming.

ever since Prop 187 was stopped by activist liberal/progressive/leftists we live in mexifornia

and the dope selling businesses all over the place show our vote is dead

and the Prop 22 to Prop 8 to Prop??(next) shows our vote is dead

for a conservative in mexifornia, why bother voting now? The cancer of liberal/leftist/progressiveism has destroyed California, and as California goes, so goes America.

The above are only opinions given by an uneducated racist neocon bigot homophobe Christian fanatic.

16   marcus   2011 Jun 14, 2:17pm  

Bap33 says

The above are only opinions given by an uneducated racist neocon bigot homophobe Christian fanatic.

Ohhhhh, so that's the recipe for having great insights and knowing the truth.

I've got a lot of work to do.

17   elliemae   2011 Jun 14, 2:26pm  

shrekgrinch says

elliemae says


So all these people who blame libs for everything are just angry blowhards? Go figure.

And all the libs how hate conservatives for being on the side of ‘big business’ are hypocrites…as well as all the libs who complain that that is ‘all that they do’ while not bitching on iota when the other (preferred) side engages in their hypocrisy. (I am referring to you, Elliemae)

I figured you'd weigh in on this, shrek. I don't hate conservatives, nor do I blame them for all the ills of the world. Nor do I blame liberals. But thanks for playing.

(a while back someone complained about my use of this phrase - please cover your eyes if it offends, and thanks for playing...)

18   marcus   2011 Jun 14, 3:42pm  

I can't see Shrek's posts, although occasionally if I look at the forum at lunch on my work computer, I'll see one of his weak attempts to use name calling as a substitute for reasoning and facts. But I'm wondering, is his stuff usually this incomprehensible these days ?

And all the libs how hate conservatives for being on the side of ‘big business’ are hypocrites…as well as all the libs who complain that that is ‘all that they do’ while not bitching on iota when the other (preferred) side engages in their hypocrisy. (I am referring to you, Elliemae)

?

19   elliemae   2011 Jun 14, 4:13pm  

marcus says

But I’m wondering, is his stuff usually this incomprehensible these days ?

Absolutely, unequivocally NO! Oh, they're incomprehensible, but they've always been. Not just "these days."

I was gonna make a snide comment like, "look in the mirror," or at the very least point out to him that just about every one of his posts include the lib (bad) conservo (good) and that we're all useless because we don't agree with his mostly unitelligible posts. I also nearly pointed out that his posts consistently attack the poster and not the post - and that by doing so his message, if he indeed has one, is lost in his delivery.

But I've decided not to say them thar things, if only because I'm still trying to figure out what he said.

20   simchaland   2011 Jun 14, 4:19pm  

Marcus, actually that post was one of his most comprehensible posts in months.

I think he and ToT are hitting the same salvia laced bong.

21   nope   2011 Jun 14, 5:05pm  

There is one substantial difference between the republicans and the democrats:

Republicans want to take on enormous amounts of debt in order to expand our military presence (this wins the votes of people who are afraid of terrorists)

Democrats want to take on enormous amounts of debt in order to provide health care and education to poor people (this wins the votes of said poor people)

Both are fundamentally flawed ideologies, just for different reasons.

22   Vicente   2011 Jun 14, 5:15pm  

Kevin says

Democrats want to take on enormous amounts of debt in order to provide health care and education to poor people (this wins the votes of said poor people)

Bzzt wrong. Democrats want taxes to be appropriate to our level of spending. Clinton ran a surplus.

Republicans are raging hypocrites and just want to wreck the entire country to see if their Libertarian Utopia could be built in the rubble.

23   marcus   2011 Jun 14, 11:23pm  

wormwood says

When your liberal friends tried to start their own liberal radio programing Air America it failed miserably. This is why by forced taxes we have to support the liberal answer to radio at NPR.

Most "liberals" here are moderates, not like the air America crowd. The kind of liberal who listens to NPR, also often very moderate. Dare I say there are probably a few intelligent conservatives who love NPR?

wormwood says

Social engineering? Had Obama’s takeover of healthcare occurred 2 months before my 50 year old friend was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer according to his doctor he would not have been allowed the radical new approach to his treatment.

How do you or his doctor know this ? Are either of you by chance republicans ? Just a guess (note I don't say conservative (I'm a conservative))

Kevin says

Democrats want to take on enormous amounts of debt in order to provide health care and education to poor people (this wins the votes of said poor people)

The federal govt is never going to be spending much on education That occurs at state and local level, although in this depression they have spent a lot helping broke states pay for education. If we could have single payer, it probably would initially add to deficits, but before long we would be spending less on healthcare, and it should eventually have the opposite impact.

24   tomoeDave   2011 Jun 14, 11:41pm  

No, no, you're getting it wrong. The idea in this picture is not that Dems and Repubs are the same. One's on the left hand, the other's on the right....it's just that they're both puppets of the rich. (Some of) the rich want you to be poor, desperate for benefits, in debt til ya die, too weak to fight back, and powerless. To do that they have to use both fists to work you over.

A fer'instance: Dems tend to take away gun rights, Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech.

Not saying I agree with this statement completely either. But you gotta interpret the cartoon correctly first.

25   MisdemeanorRebel   2011 Jun 15, 2:13pm  

#5 Dept of Education is almost wholly subsidies and guarantees for PRIVATE issuers of student college loans.

Protecting Banks against default, so that "Even if they lose, they win."

26   Paralithodes   2011 Jun 15, 9:04pm  

tomoeDave says

A fer’instance: Dems tend to take away gun rights, Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech.

"Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech?" What on earth are you referring to?

27   tomoeDave   2011 Jun 16, 12:58am  

Paralithodes says

“Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech?” What on earth are you referring to?

Sorry, it's more subtle than that, I should've said...both sides tend to erode freedom of speech from different angles. Surely you can agree with this assessment? GOP creates "free speech zones" and passes the Patriot Act, DNC is all for banning "hate speech" and for leaning on "political correctness" and such...etc. I'm sure it's not hard to come up with more examples.

Perhaps if I wanted to contrast things...republicans are more likely to erode separation of church and state or freedom of religion...whereas dems are more likely to erode gun rights. That's the idea, anyway. Again, you can debate how accurate it is overall, but there are people on both sides who want to make various things you do illegal.

28   FortWayne   2011 Jun 16, 2:29am  

thanks for the post marcus, good one.

29   Done!   2011 Jun 16, 3:09am  

marcus says

Dare I say there are probably a few intelligent conservatives who love NPR?

And you would be full of shit.

Am and independent, and there's only so much smug condescending lip smacking I can take.

30   Done!   2011 Jun 16, 7:41am  

michaelsch says

4. It presided over the destruction of the whole generation of American young people who at that time massively became business administrators rather than pursuing any productive career.

Yeah how's that working out for us?

Go to Wal-Mart and everyone is an "Associate".

31   MisdemeanorRebel   2011 Jun 18, 9:05am  

President ignores own staff's legal opinions about the legality of the War Powers Act, starts war anyway.

This comes from a guy who swore he'd not act *before* getting approval from Congress.

SULLIVAN
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/king.html
GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/18/libya

Be sure to check out Greenwald's piece.

32   tatupu70   2011 Jun 18, 10:28am  

thunderlips11 says

President ignores own staff’s legal opinions about the legality of the War Powers Act, starts war anyway.

That's not really true. He asked for opinions and got some each way. He didn't ignore them, he evaluated the opnions on each side of the issue and made his decision. That's what Presidents do.

33   Bap33   2011 Jun 18, 10:50am  

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11 ...... and now they think Bozobama is cool for avoiding congress ?? stunning.

34   marcus   2011 Jun 18, 11:05am  

Bap33 says

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11

Weren't we wanting NATO allies to be with us in Afghanistan, where as in this case, NATO was asking us to help them with something they would have done with or without us in Libya? I'm sure that in every other way its exactly the same though, because you know, the word war is involved and everything.

35   tatupu70   2011 Jun 18, 11:21am  

Bap33 says

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11 …… and now they think Bozobama is cool for avoiding congress ?? stunning.

Again--not true. The freakizoids wanted Bush to get NATO permission to attack a country that was not involved in 9/11 in any way at all.

Personally, I wasn't in favor of attacking Libya. I think it was a poor decision--but saying he ignored his advisors is inaccurate.

36   marcus   2011 Jun 18, 11:23am  

What was the upside of Obama involving us in Libya without getting congresses approval ?

MY guess is that it was probably one of two things. Either:

1) there wasn't enough time, or some loss of impact, given how and when Nato was asking us to act.

or

2) It would cost too much politically (ie republicans would make him kiss their ass before voting for it) . There is a pattern of such a strong desire to prevent Obama from being successful, that they probably would have made him agree to undoing all "liberal" legislation of the last 50 years and to do retroactive billion dollar tax rebates for the rich, before they would even allow the discussion to reach the floor.

37   MisdemeanorRebel   2011 Jun 18, 11:54am  

tatupu70 says

That’s not really true. He asked for opinions and got some each way. He didn’t ignore them, he evaluated the opnions on each side of the issue and made his decision. That’s what Presidents do.

tatupu70 says

Personally, I wasn’t in favor of attacking Libya. I think it was a poor decision–but saying he ignored his advisors is inaccurate.

In this case, Tatupu, the President is defying convention by ignoring the conclusions of the OLC. In this case, not just OLC Head Krass, but also DoD General Counsel Johnson and AG Holder.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp

38   MisdemeanorRebel   2011 Jun 18, 12:01pm  

BTW, Obama is violating the 60-day War Powers Act which was passed by a Democratic Congress during the Nixon administration.

I should also add, just like the Bush Administration, the President is refusing to share his chosen justification as to why Libya isn't "Hostilities" and why he does not need to comply with the War Powers Act.

He won't even explain why it doesn't apply. I guess it's okay though, because if the Republican President can not explain himself, Obama doesn't have to either.

39   Â¥   2011 Jun 18, 2:57pm  

He won’t even explain why it doesn’t apply

They do, actually. Read your damn nyt article immediately above. They say that no Americans are being put in harm's way, now that NATO is taking the lead and our efforts are RPV controlling and logistics.

Everybody -- to the right of Kucinich -- clutching their pearls over bombing Khaddafi and his thugs is being highly disingenuous.

I personally disagree with this, I think the spirit of "declaring war" in the Constitution means Congress must always be consulted and sign off anytime we engage any foreign power on the military level, regardless if they can "shoot back" or not.

But I'm not losing sleep over this since the political situation of this counter is completely and totally fucked at the moment.

If the Republicans could behave like responsible adults for a change then we could have a better government process.

So far, no such luck.

40   Â¥   2011 Jun 18, 3:03pm  

thunderlips11 says

the President is defying convention by ignoring the conclusions of the OLC. In this case, not just OLC Head Krass, but also DoD General Counsel Johnson and AG Holder.

Big deal. Opinions differ. OLC does not have any constitutional power over the CiC. Your own article also says :

"Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice"

I think Obama went off half-cocked in not getting a Concurrent Resolution through Congress granting him the express permission of Congress to take Khaddafi out.

Comments 1 - 40 of 63       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions