2012 Democratic National Convention Agenda

[stevesh]

while i agree with the spirit of your post, i have to say i see no reason to trust republicans where deficit/debt reduction/elimination is concerned.  the two parties have both consistently driven us toward the same cliff.

Yup. There is absolutely no difference between the two major parties when it comes to spending and indebtedness. None. We're screwed either way. If Romney wins and the Republicans take both houses of Congress and repeal ObamaCare, I guarantee that the money that would have been wasted there will be spent on something else, and then some.

[Zircon]

With a hostile press to the republicans, we'll be kept "informed" - and I hope they don't make up shit - about what the GOP is doing. What pisses me off is that they go "mum" when hthe democrats are running things. Bias? I come now - no fucking way!

[Jasmine]

I'm not delusional in thinking that Obama was ever or will ever be the great white hope (no Presidential administration is an island), but how many Americans remember the Republicans' refusal to work with Obama to heal the economy during his first two years of office? The priority of the GOP is to get Obama out, and that comes ahead of the good of the country.

If Romney wins it will be like having a televangelist as President of the United States. Hallelujah!, Kumbaya!, and pour yourself some beer or whiskey, baby. The bullshit is comin' through the rye. If we're facing the real threat of having a Mormon in the oval office (one who proudly dons "Mormon underwear" to keep lust and temptation at bay - seriously, folks), then why not endorse Donny Osmond, for shit sake?

That said, I will always maintain the notion that there is no, I repeat, NO discernible difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. None. Puff the Magic Dragon is a two-headed monster who lives by the Potomac.

What positive changes have ever resulted from a change of political party winning the Presidency? Can someone enlighten me, because perhaps I cannot see the forest for the trees.  From where I sit, there is never change - merely a continuation of the same game plan and critical path (and critical condition - the U.S. has long been suffering from malaise) orchestrated by the corporate elite.

"The reason they call it the 'American Dream' is that you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin

At the Republican convention in Tampa, Romney delivered the person Americans wanted to see and hear - not the person he actually is. Nothing new there, for either him or any presidential candidate for that matter, Obama obviously included. When someone runs for President, the Party Machine takes over - with all its disparate viewpoints, with all the ideology, with all the spin and salesmanship of a used car salesman and the charm of a snake oilman, with all the test panels and polls, and the proliferation of lies and factual distortions - and they process the candidate to what the Party thinks is the most marketable and electable person - someone who is totally fake and unlike their true selves.

Everyone keeps asking "Who's the real Mitt Romney?". The answer to that question is very simple; who did you think he was before he started his run to the presidency?

For many, he's an elitist whose success started when he first accepted the $20M trust fund handout from his father - former President of GM and once-presidential candidate; who then has the oblivious guts to suggest that "corporations are people" and that the rich are rich because they "take on risk". He's a man that poses to be the product of America, the great meritocracy, when he is nothing but a shining example of the opposite - an aristocracy. Those who have ever been poor know the real Mitt Romney - he was the CEO of the bank that foreclosed on your house.

I go on record saying that should Mitt Romney win the election, it will be the worst thing to happen to the United States and the rest of the world since George Bush Jr. He is the quintessential banker's man. When he says he wants to create 12 million jobs he means Wall Street Jobs. Romney was pushed by the mainstream media as the only real alternative to Obama from the beginning and didn't give anyone else a real chance. Not that the GOP (and the Democratic Party, for that matter) is exactly brimming with candidates who possess integrity. Free choice has long been a mere illusion in the United States.

I am appalled and frightened to death at how the drawn line that separates Church and State is fading...fast. I am not a God-fearing woman. I am not a God-believing woman. I do not endorse nor do I offer any support to any organized religious faith (cult). I am a nation-fearing person and I shudder at the sheer ignorance and apathy that surrounds me.

"Mittens" Romney as the Republican candidate is some sort of caricature distilled from all the competing ideological and religious factions in the Party but far from the real person, or indeed, what that person may do if elected. When the country faces some really difficult problems, not only on the financial front, should the electorate not be given the opportunity to elect a 'real' person and not someone from DC Comics?

We need to eliminate our co-dependency - ours on Big Gov and theirs on us. We need to self-empower and regroup as individuals and as communities. I concur with Catherine Austin Fitts on this one point of hers: the only hope in hell to salvage and rebuild and sustain a healthy economy is for people to stop thinking Wall Street and begin thinking Main Street. Support local businesses - generate the revenue in your respective community and KEEP it there. This may sound rather simple-minded and naive, yet as human beings we're long guilty of complicating matters to the extreme. We weave tangled webs - we are responsible, yet our individual and collective irresponsibility (and again, apathy) re a healthy economy, a sustainable and enviable GDP and GNP is indeed our downfall and Achilles' heel.

But I digress.

Somebody please wake me up - this dream's getting out of hand.

[Zircon]

So sorry to continue on. An interesting read even if I'm the one who wrote it. Onan, Shockley and some others who think I am pathological (to use Onan's term) ... anyway ...


Paul Ryan compared to Joseph Goebbles and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley compared to Hitler's mistress. Universal health care was a tenant of the national socialists under Hitler and that sounds more like the democratic platform to me. Hitler was even a vegetarian (vegan for modern trendies). Ann Romney described as basically a "kept woman". I thought families were taboo when it came to campaigns? Palin's daughter wasn't  she? Even Letterman essentially called her a whore.

DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz says, "what the republicans are "doing" is dangerous for Israel". Uh, who is in power? She is also the one that got the ball rolling with Romney, the unfeeling contributor to a woman's death from cancer. Oh, he is also a tax cheat and a felon. Jason Biggs, entertainer, tweeted how he'd like to sexually assault both Romney's and Ryan's spouses. Geez! Anyway, back to the DNC and this circus down (and out) in North Carolina.

Prostitutes, pimps, hookers, crack and bed bugs in nine of the hotels/motels made available - at a high cost - to the invasion of attendees for the DNC. Homeless people kicked out and living in churches and on abandoned loading docks. Yep, the democrats care. Talk is cheap - really, really cheap.

You know that if this same situation and availability was a plague - even pursued by RNC attendees - the MSM would be reporting on this so quick, you'd be getting reports "real time". Never heard a one. Probably some hanky-panky I'm sure as this is to be expected at some level.

We now get this excuse that they're going to move Obama's acceptance speech into the hall/arena as they have a perceived weather threat. The national weather service has revised the forecast to 20% chance of rain. BTW, here in Oklahoma during our hot and humid summer months we are routinely given a 10% chance. Carolina is different I realize but what is more important - rain or 80,000 screaming fans cheering "Four More Years"?

Bank of America (one of Obama's BFF's through Bernanke and the Fed) stadium will not be used. Personally, I think it is because they couldn't bus all of those paid attendees down quickly enough - or couldn't generate enough interest - to fill the stadium. But that is just me and we all know I won't cut Obama any slack. But he'll cut my economic throat while telling me he is looking out for me. So "jihad" of him.

Unemployment among Hispanics is 10%, the middle class median income has dropped to the upper $40k. Among blacks, unemployment is 14.4%. Remember, only those filing for weekly unemployment claims are counted. If yours have run out you are no longer a statistic being counted - you don't exist anymore. You can increase thos e number for those who don't even look anymore. Under-employment probably even doubles those numbers. Times have never been economically great for Hispanics or Blacks but they are now living in a major depression. White are headed along the same path. Times are bad - going to get worse - regardless of who wins.

Since 2009 young single women have seen their unemployment numbers rise from 12.5% to 14.5% - Dept. of Labor Statistics. Approx. 750,000 women have lost their jobs under Obama's administration. Growing numbers of women are becoming impoverished.

Men have already been disenfranchised in the work place regardless of their larger numbers. Opportunities are based largely on EEO type criteria where race, gender and orientation (unspoken) are favorable. There are more women in management these days - and they run HR departments - so don't expect sympathy for men when it comes to hiring - white men in particular.

An ABC poll, obviously one of the Obama-supporting news outlets, says Obama is starting to lose women in large numbers. And these are former supporters of Obama - not married women, many with children, who have been largely in Romney's camp all along.

Biden says a good bumper sticker would read, "Osama Bin Laden is Dead and General Motors is Alive". The crowd, largely union and hand picked, cheered. Hey, "Government Motors" has yet to pay off the debt given the unions. I think the government even sold its stock in GM (please verify). The Volt, a completely laughable and cruel joke played on the American consumer and taxpayer has had its production line cancelled. Their batteries are still probably still blowing up/catching fire.

ABC poll says Obama is starting to lose women in large numbers. Now Michelle said last night that we all need to FALL IN LOVE with Barack all over again. He is the president - I think most everybody is aware of who he is. And why would we all fall OUT OF LOVE with him - answer me that Michelle? Was he all fluff and puff? A truckin' dude with a big smile, feather in his hat and lots of golden chains?

And Poor kid? Really? Expensive private schools in Hawaii and California then Columbia and Harvard. Born from and raised by communists. Not bad. I guess that Marxist phrase, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their NEEDS" was either ignored or Obama's family was very, very "needy" (of capitalist dollars). Both went to high society prep schools. Michelle has admitted to being an "affirmative action" all the way through Princeton. Obama was a foreign exchange student - he won't tell you that now - hence no college transcripts.

One has to wonder why Hillary Rodham-Clinton, who was the heir-apparent for the democratic nomination in 2008, got shoved aside for this unknown senator from Illinois with absolutely no track record of accomplishment in either the private sector or in congress. A rivalry between two groups of masters? The "perfect" sock puppet for one group of masters - the more radical ones? One has to wonder.

Hillary had her own agenda but, as it appears today anyway, wasn't quite as radical as Obama's handlers have proven to be. While she is no lover of republicans, she has enough political savvy to know you have to compromise and work with all parties to get your agenda - or favored parts of it at least - through congress and signed into law.

The US Senate would have actually produced a budget in each year had she been president. Under Obama they have yet to do so. She would probably be reelected in 2012 since she'd not have got us into a $16 trillion debt staring us in the face (happened yesterday).

The democrats in congress have never voted - not a single vote - for an budget sent to them by Obama. So where is this outrage at the republicans coming from? It will work on an uninformed public since the MSM doesn't advertise the fact that the democrats haven't found anything coming to them from Obama regarding a budget as viable.

Alec Baldwin says if Obama was white he'd be up by 17%. Limbaugh says if he was white he'd be down by 20%. Baldwin has proven to be a stupid, hot tempered liar. He still resides in this country. He was supposed to have left if and when Bush got elected. I wonder what he'd have done if Hillary won?

[Rasputin]

Excellent post Jasmine! But trying to talk sense to most Americans when it comes to politics is pointless because most of them are so brain washed into believing that "their" party is better.

Although its really not going to make one bit of difference of which puppet get selected, oops, I mean elected, I kind of hope Obama gets it. Its going to be cheap entertainment reading the posts from bible thumping nut jobs, and keyboard commandos that seem to populate cyberspace.

We're all doomed I tells ya, it says so in the book that's been translated from several different ancient languages!

For all you Romney supporters, here is a little gem about the Mormons:


Banned Mormon Cartoon - EXTENDED VERSION

On a positive note, maybe if Romney wins he will dump some money into NASA so they can try and find Kolob.

[Ben Shockley]

Tonight, Wednesday, the Democratic Convention will feature an address by former President Bill Clinton.   Marking yet another contrast with the Repubs cartoonish display of angry old White people last week.   I mean, where was the Repubs' last President-- what was his name?   Oh yeah, George W. Bush.   Why do you suppose they didn't trot him out?

The Repubs have worked a campaign theme of claiming that Obama is an extremist even by the standards of the previous "most-radical-ever" Democratic President, Clinton.   Ever since Obama came to office, the Repubs have found some hitherto-unknown love for Clinton and even for Jimmy Carter, using those names to evoke some halcyon days when those godless Dems were at least... well, at least were headed by a White guy for god's sake!
I predict that Clinton's speech tonight will pretty much put the stake through that desperate gambit.
'cause, I mean-- whatever policy differences there may be between Bill Clinton and Pres. Obama, at least Clinton was invited and will speak!   Unlike-- what's his name? --oh yeah: George W. Bush.

The Repubs have also lately been working the predictable old "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" bit.   That's fair, for them or any party in a campaign.   But logic and consistency have never been the Repubs strong suit, and this time is no different.  "Four years ago," the country was at the end of 8 years of Republican rule (notice I didn't say "governance").   So let's take the Repubs at face value and assume that Obama has single-handedly wrecked a perfect situation handed over to him by --whoever the godly Repub was who came before him, I can't remember.   All the problems faced by the country now have been created by the Obama administration.   So shouldn't the Repubs be eager to trot out whoever the last Repub Pres was, and have him talk first-hand about the great economy and civic conditions his administration had created, and how Obama has ruined the fruits of his benevolent stewardship?
So where is that guy, that last Pres?   (WHAT was his name?)   Why didn't the Repubs trot him out?

But the Repubs claim that there is bad blood in the Dems' tent.   Hmmm.

Okay, so much for the intra-party stuff.   Now to the voters.   While we still can.
The electorate is really polarized this year, that's for sure.  Clinton speaking may or may not give Obama much of a "bump."   I wonder why the Repubs didn't trot out their last Pres (WHAT was that guy's name?) to try to give Lord Romney a bump.   Because surely, being a godly Republican, he must have been one of the common people, and he must have been wildly popular, right?  Whoever he was.

[Rasputin]

Maybe the reason the Shrub (Bush) did not speak is someone was afraid shoes might have been thrown!

Its really funny that NOBODY wants to talk about how the Shrub started this whole bailout BS with the same Wall Street Gang that pretty much advises this administration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So then...where were all the bible thumpers and these so called "patriots" when Bush and company took a shit on the Constitution, then wiped their ass with the Bill Of Rights? I'll tell you where...under the same rock these tards crawled out of when Obama got elected. They were spoon fed horseshit from Faux Noise, Hanity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the usual suspects, and told that everything was just peachy, and if they spoke out or even question the then appointed President and his policy's they were un-American and against the Troops.

We deserve EXACTLY what's comming our way, and thanks to most Americans and the Press being asleep at the switch for decades, its really going to suck for us. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

[Ben Shockley]

There's a lot in what you write, RaRa.

...where were all the bible thumpers and these so called "patriots" when Bush and company took a shit on the Constitution, then wiped their ass with the Bill Of Rights?

I'll feed Paper*Boy's stereotype of me by suggesting: That was okay, because Bush & Co. were White!
Actually what I think was:

They were spoon fed horseshit from Faux Noise, Hanity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the usual suspects, and told that everything was just peachy

Right.  The brain-dead "patriots" only get "patriotic" when someone tells them who to hate (because that's about the extent of "social action" they can comprehend) in order to get that label.

...if they spoke out or even question the then appointed President and his policy's they were un-American and against the Troops.

Ain't it funny how a gang of war-starting chickenhawks who never put on a uniform (except maybe in a dodge to get out of going to VN) love to use "the troops" as a club to bash their critics?
I remember hearing GW Bush at one of those dog-and-pony shows of citizens asking him pre-screened questions, and him spouting about how military service is the most-honorable service you can do for the country-- a view that he apparently formed some time after 1973, and most likely around 2000.   I remember really wishing that someone would stand up and ask him why neither of his apparently healthy and competent daughters were willing to perform such honorable public service; had he encouraged them to?   MAYBE we could have heard the question before the goons tasered the poor schmuck to the ground.

Are all you readers aware that Mitt Romney demonstrated FOR the draft --to keep poor kids getting sent to get killed for something in Vietnam, while he, as a Mormon "missionary," was exempted from any such service?  You'll never hear that on Fox "News."
(just google "romney protests for draft" and see for yourself, because of course you wouldn't trust any link I provided)
As for "honorable public service," and being asked about his sons' lack of military service, Mitt is on record as saying that working to get him elected  IS their "public service."
(slightly harder to google; try "Romney comments sons military service")
"Megalomania," anyone?

[Ruteger]

Are U kidding me? There is no difference? Look a the GOP/DEM platforms. Can you read?

Yup. There is absolutely no difference between the two major parties when it comes to spending and indebtedness. None. We're screwed either way. If Romney wins and the Republicans take both houses of Congress and repeal ObamaCare, I guarantee that the money that would have been wasted there will be spent on something else, and then some.

[PB the Deplorable]

... What positive changes have ever resulted from a change of political party winning the Presidency? Can someone enlighten me, because perhaps I cannot see the forest for the trees.  From where I sit, there is never change...

... "The reason they call it the 'American Dream' is that you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin...

I thought George Carlin was a great comedian but did he ever wonder why people flock here from all over the world?  Did he ask why boat people could come here and in a generation be middle class business owning citizens that send their kids to some of the best universitites in the world?  Where else does that happen?  Or ever happened?

Are we really to believe it didn't matter who won the election in 1980, Reagan or Carter? 

Or '84 Reagan / Mondale?

Or '88 Bush / Dukakis?

Ok not every election matters as much as others, '92 and '96 - Bush / Clinton and Clinton / Dole probably weren't that different, but does anyone think Gore (2000)would have cut the taxes Bush did, or responded to 9/11 by attacking Iraq?  Would 'global warming' be the big scare it is now if Gore had become president after that election?  Would Kerry (2004) have been a different president than Bush?  What was all the Obamamania in 2008 if Hilary or John McCain would have been 'the same'?

Not convinced?  We can go back further - JFK / Nixon in 1960, Goldwater / LBJ in '64, Nixon / Humphrey in 1968.  How are any of these 'the same'?

The world would be a different place if any of these had turned out differently - everything from US involvement in Viet Nam, to the 'Great Society' programs, to Watergate.  What is all the complaining about Reagan budget 'cuts' if Carter would have been no different - would Carter have stopped projecting weakness in foreign affairs, restructured the tax code (and thus the economy) to set in motion 25 years of expansion (which included the creation of Silicon Valley and all that tecnology), or stopped appeasing the USSR and taken the same steps Reagan did to set course to end that regime peacefully if only he'd won in 1980?   

[coaster]

The winner is going to come down to who liked Eastwood/Clinton more.

[Ben Shockley]

I hate to see stuff so misunderstood and misrepresented.

[how can] boat people could come here and in a generation be middle class business owning citizens that send their kids to some of the best universitites in the world?

If you're talking about "boat people" from Southeast Asia, more specifically Vietnam, around whom the term came into general use back in the '80s, those achievements aren't too miraculous when you understand that the people in the biggest hurry to get out of the newly-Communist-run "South Vietnam" were the existing middle- and upper- classes anyway!  They were overwhelmingly NOT "poor downtrodden" masses seeking economic improvement or some such crap.  They were the local ex-capitalists and pro-American types who were seen as problematic anyway by the new Communist government.   Further, lots of the "boat people" were ethnic Chinese who comprised a huge proportion of the entrepreneurial class in the ex- "South Vietnam" and who were seen as sort of a "fifth column" because-- believe it or not-- not "all them commie countries" were controlled out of Moscow; they were actual independent countries who had their own various tensions, like when China invaded Vietnam in 1979.
In any case, those capitalists and ex- members of the U.S.-puppet government who left Vietnam had existing social and business networks  that the upper- and middle classes of any society use to maintain and advance their status, and these were transferred largely intact to the U.S.

Where else does that happen?  Or ever happened?

Good question.   Find another example in history of a nation collapsing and transferring it's elite largely intact to another nation.   Because that's what happened.   It bespeaks nothing particularly "great" about the U.S. that people with connections can easily regain wealth here.
What does it say about the U.S. that it creates puppet states and grinds them to death in needless, artificial wars?

...does anyone think Gore (2000)would have cut the taxes Bush did, or responded to 9/11 by attacking Iraq?

Are you saying that those were good things??

Would 'global warming' be the big scare it is now if Gore had become president after that election? 

Probably not, because a Gore administration might have actually begun to do something about it instead of scoffing.

would Carter have stopped projecting weakness in foreign affairs [or] stopped appeasing the USSR..?

What the hell does that mean?

[Reagan] restructured the tax code (and thus the economy) to set in motion 25 years of expansion

Translation: cut taxes on the rich, went to war with labor, and set in motion X-number of years of wealth-concentration into the hands of fewer and fewer.

[Reagan] set course to end [the Soviet] regime peacefully

So internal stresses didn't have much to do with it, huh?   Various social- and political scientists were predicting an internally-driven breakup of the Soviet Union somewhat earlier, but I guess it took Ronnie Raygun talking about --but not really building-- the "Star Wars" system to really do it, huh?   If you want to say that helping keep the Soviets mired in Afghanistan for 8 years was a good idea~  you DO understand that those "freedom fighters" turned into "al-Qaeda," right?
By the way-- assuming that Reagan in his senile genius somehow actually did "end the Soviet regime"--  tell us how that improved/s the lives of average Americans in 1990 or today.

[Rasputin]

/quote]

It has nothing to do with reading, and has everything to do with paying attetion, which you obviously can't or won't do.
I'm actually surprised that as a so called "christian" like yourself is voting for Romney. You better hope the Mormons did not choose the correct correct "invisible man in the sky" religion, I'd hate to see how Mormon Jesus, Joseph Smith, Elohim might judge you.

I really hope Obama wins now, because I just can't wait to read your posts about how doomed we all are.

Tell us the truth...your really the caller known as JC.

[onan]

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER...

[HAL 9000]

...We need to self-empower and regroup as individuals and as communities. I concur with Catherine Austin Fitts on this one point of hers: the only hope in hell to salvage and rebuild and sustain a healthy economy is for people to stop thinking Wall Street and begin thinking Main Street. Support local businesses - generate the revenue in your respective community and KEEP it there.

Jasmine:

I really enjoy your posts, but when it comes to politics, we'll have to agree to disagree. My best friend is an avowed communist/socialist. He actually states everyone should be paid the same - "equality" as he calls it, no matter their profession. Fast-food workers and doctors should be paid the same amount. Early on I recognized I could never convince him his views are vastly skewed, so we agree to not talk politics.

Which is pretty much why I don't post here - I'm what I consider to be Conservative/leaning Libertarian (in the mold of the great Milton Friedman). Even though I'm fairly confident in my ability to eviscerate most liberal ideology, I also recognize that most likely, even when presented with thoughtful reason and civil discourse, I'll likely not change any adult liberal's mind as to their view of the world and how it works. What appears to me to be simple self-evident truths, are alien notions to otherwise intelligent liberals. So I usaully resign myself to not posting, as it would likely serve no purpose.

However, since you mentioned Catherine Austin Fitts, I'll quote from myself in a post I made here about two years ago:

My other c2c nemesis would be Catherine Austin Fitts - another fraud. I researched her background, and she has publicly written about her beliefs that the CIA or other governmental agencies import and distribute cocaine and other drugs, purposefully distributing drugs to blacks, in an effort to destroy their race. (easily found by doing your own research)

I have also heard her proselytize the notion of being more "community oriented" when it comes to food, financing, etc. I don't argue with that basic premise, however, this is  coming from a woman who admits she used to live in a mansion and owned a Ferrari. She recently said during a recent interview, that she cannot sell her current house, as she owes more than it's worth.

Even if she were to take a loss, even a large one, for a person who is allegedly a financial "expert" - who used to live in a mansion and own a Ferrari, but can't sell her own home due to the potential loss, is NOT someone I could ever trust for financial advice.

Catherine Austin Fitts is a "911-thruther" who believes that shortly after writing Condoleezza Rice in 2004, she was poisoned no less than four times.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/03/catherine-austin-fitts-somebodys-been.html
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2009-03-13/hear-seymour-hershs-entire-speech-regarding-us-death-squads-catherine-austin-fitts-claim-poisoning et. al.

In her letter to Condi Rice, she accuses her of monetarily profiting from the 9-11 attacks:

Unlike many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose family, friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work. Victim families, friends and the residents of the communities directly harmed can calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace the flow of money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the profits your supporters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can calculate how 9-11 profiteering connects to the financing and silence of corporate media.

...They can see how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicate that put you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so richly paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus and the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.

Reference: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ca_fitts01.htm

Here she claims the U.S. Government and Intelligence agencies use "mob" tactics by financing illegal drug distribution in South-Central Los Angeles to finance government spending (this is from 07-17-2012):
http://soundcloud.com/flashpoints/flashpoints-daily-newsmag-07-9

Her claims get even more bizarre as the interview continues (black helicopters etc.). Admittedly, I could not bear to listen to the entire interview.

Fitts is a sore spot for me, because she is nuttier than a fruit cake, yet so many people buy into her "schtick" about helping the "common people." Let's not fool ourselves; she is in business to make money (http://solari.com/about-us/catherine/). Maybe even enough to pay off her underwater mortgage she so astutely managed to acquire - after selling her mansion and Ferrari.

To be clear, I'm not attacking you - I love your posts - but Fitts is a soulless, intellectually vacuous nutjob.

I go on record saying that should Mitt Romney win the election, it will be the worst thing to happen to the United States and the rest of the world since George Bush Jr.

Of course, I respectfully disagree.

[HAL 9000]

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER...

As the last line from the clip says, "America's not the greatest country in the world anymore."

I am not surprised that Aaron Sorkin would profer such vapid drivel in his HBO series.

What Aaron Sorkin you ask? Though I am carefull to quote from from Wikipedia, this seems reliable according to the sourced material:

A consistent supporter of the Democratic Party, Sorkin has made substantial political campaign contributions to candidates between 1999 and 2007, according to CampaignMoney.com. During the 2004 US presidential election campaign, the liberal advocacy group MoveOn's political action committee enlisted Sorkin and Rob Reiner to create one of their anti-Bush campaign advertisements. In August 2008, Sorkin was involved in a Generation Obama event at the Fine Arts Theater in Beverly Hills, California.

In 1987, Sorkin started using marijuana and cocaine. He has said that in freebase cocaine he found a drug that gave him relief from certain nervous tensions he deals with on a regular basis. In 1995, he checked into rehab at the Hazelden Institute in Minnesota, on the advice of his then girlfriend and soon to be wife Julia Bingham, to try to beat his addiction to cocaine. In 2001, Sorkin...received the Phoenix Rising Award for [his] personal victor[y] over substance abuse. However, two months later on April 15, 2001, Sorkin was arrested when guards at a security checkpoint at the Burbank Airport found hallucinogenic mushrooms, marijuana, and crack cocaine in his carry-on bag when a metal crack pipe set off the gate's metal detector.

Atta boy Aaron. By the way Aaron, I wonder if you voluntarily paid more taxes to the Federal Government to help pay your "fair share" as part of the "1%?" It's real easy... just go here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance

or make a direct payment here: https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Oh, and just FYI, the total Fiscal Year to Date contributions the leftist one-percenters (and others of course) have paid to the U.S. Treasury amounts to about $7.3 million.

Compare this to Oprah's private jet. Oprah’s ride is a $42 million custom-build Global Express XRS built by Bombardier Aerospace.
Sources:
http://www.luxist.com/2009/05/11/oprah-champions-private-jets/
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/05/11/oprah-its-great-to-have-a-private-jet/

I have nothing against the wealthy, but rather, have great disdain for hypocrites; those who will not do voluntarily, what they insist we do involuntarily, by confiscating our labor and thereby our liberty, through Congress' power to tax.

      

[onan]

As the last line from the clip says, "America's not the greatest country in the world anymore."

I am not surprised that Aaron Sorkin would profer such vapid drivel in his HBO series.

It always amazes me how you miss the point... or try to suggest the point is something other than it is.

Sorkin may not be the role model you wish, I know he isn't mine. But that isn't the point.

The point is America isn't the greatest country anymore... it is that simple.

I didn't denigrate your economic idol even though it isn't that hard to do. Because your post made a specific point. Whether I agree with it or not.

If we are going to trade on validity based solely on hypocrisy... well good luck with that. We are all hypocrites; we just don't like to admit it. But it is part of the human condition we all have conflicting beliefs that we hold as valid. If not then I would be convinced I wasn't talking to a human being. As with all it is complicated.

[HAL 9000]

It always amazes me how you miss the point... or try to suggest the point is something other than it is...The point is America isn't the greatest country anymore... it is that simple.

Actually, I did get the point. I just happened to disagree with it.

By far, the United States has the largest legal (and illegal) immigration of any country on earth. Though I have sources to support this, I would posit there is a reason why overwhelmingly, foreigners choose the U.S. over other countries - and  my guess is it's not because of the scenery.

I would instead, postulate the underlying principles upon which people choose the U.S. over others, can be discovered in what is arguably the greatest founding document; that they are, "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Despite the complexity and failings of the human condition, and consequently the shortcomings of governments, I am convinced that it is still these principles upon which, millions of people still choose to come to America - "the greatest country on earth."

   

[onan]

Actually, I did get the point. I just happened to disagree with it.

By far, the United States has the largest legal (and illegal) immigration of any country on earth. Though I have sources to support this, I would posit there is a reason why overwhelmingly, foreigners choose the U.S. over other countries - and  my guess is it's not because of the scenery.

I would instead, postulate the underlying principles upon which people choose the U.S. over others, can be discovered in what is arguably the greatest founding document; that they are, "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Despite the complexity and failings of the human condition, and consequently the shortcomings of governments, I am convinced that it is still these principles upon which, millions of people still choose to come to America - "the greatest country on earth."

   

And this post is one I respect. We don't have to agree with each other. And I get your argument that people choose to come here for very good reasons. I do not see that as a reason to not look at our short comings. There is no reason we shouldn't be first in education. There is no reason our healthcare is the most costly yet not the most effective. There is no reason we should have the levels of poverty we do. There is no reason we should have the violence we do.

But we do. And those things alone stop us from being the best.

[slipstream]

And this post is one I respect. We don't have to agree with each other. And I get your argument that people choose to come here for very good reasons. I do not see that as a reason to not look at our short comings. There is no reason we shouldn't be first in education. There is no reason our healthcare is the most costly yet not the most effective. There is no reason we should have the levels of poverty we do. There is no reason we should have the violence we do.

Oh yes, there are very certain reasons for the degradations you mentioned above. All of those have come at the expense of increasing government intervention in free markets. 

[Marc.Knight]

It always amazes me how you miss the point... or try to suggest the point is something other than it is.

Sorkin may not be the role model you wish, I know he isn't mine. But that isn't the point.

The point is America isn't the greatest country anymore... it is that simple.

I didn't denigrate your economic idol even though it isn't that hard to do. Because your post made a specific point. Whether I agree with it or not.

If we are going to trade on validity based solely on hypocrisy... well good luck with that. We are all hypocrites; we just don't like to admit it. But it is part of the human condition we all have conflicting beliefs that we hold as valid. If not then I would be convinced I wasn't talking to a human being. As with all it is complicated.

To help frame this debate we should establish criteria for what defines "greatest".  If it is purely defined as economic opportunity then China would qualify as a candidate.

I venture to say that given the complexities of the world and reality there is no "greatest country", only shifting political paradigms and economic incentives.  Intrinsic greatness of a system (e.g. USA) can be a matter of debate, but it must be balanced and critiqued against objective benchmarks as I believe Onan is pointing out.  If anything, THAT is what makes the US great.

[onan]

Oh yes, there are very certain reasons for the degradations you mentioned above. All of those have come at the expense of increasing government intervention in free markets.

I agree, I should have been more clear. There are no justifiable reasons when it comes to health, education, and strong social systems.

To add free markets are not the total answer. It is a misconception to think all boats rise equally. Education should never be considered a commodity, nor should healthcare.

[Marc.Knight]

I agree, I should have been more clear. There are no justifiable reasons when it comes to health, education, and strong social systems.

To add free markets are not the total answer. It is a misconception to think all boats rise equally. Education should never be considered a commodity, nor should healthcare.

I would also add something else that should not be considered a commodity:  homes

[onan]

Also Hal, I found this vid:


Former LA Police Officer Mike Ruppert Confronts CIA Director John Deutch on Drug Trafficking


I would also point out that both the FBI and the CIA have been found guilty/culpable of criminal thuggery.

The FBI was ordered to pay damages of 100 million dollars for letting 4 men to do prison time. All the while, they were innocent, the FBI was aware of those 4 men's innocence.

As to the CIA and trafficking in drugs... there are stories in several different news agencies with documented sources. So Fitts may not be as hard to believe as you wish she were.


Please forgive the continued derailment... The DNC probably has just as many zealots as the RNC. But the zealotry is more diverse.

[HAL 9000]

As to the CIA and trafficking in drugs... there are stories in several different news agencies with documented sources. So Fitts may not be as hard to believe as you wish she were.

So I'll try a couple of axioms to illustrate my point:

Richard Hoagland is right when he correctly states, "Mars is a planet." I'd hasten to suggest that most rational people also find him to be a certifiable nutjob.
John Lear is an accomplished pilot, so is correct when says he can fly aircraft. I think most would find him even more certifiably functionally delusional than Hoagland.
Steven Greer obtained his medical degree, so he is right by saying the heart is a vital organ. Not much beyond that, he's a lunatic.
Catherine Austin Fitts has an MBA in finance. So she knows money... well, kind of. She used to be rich with a mansion and Ferrari, but now is underwater with her house in Tennessee. But when she goes off into 9-11-truther land, and countless other conspiracies, I maintain she is an intellectually vacuous nutjob.

To use a conceptual metaphor or analogy:

Richard Hoagland is to Steven Greer, as
John Lear is to Catherine Austin Fitts.

∴ Catherine Austin Fitts is nutty.


Can we all agree this should be part of our party's platform? (Unless you're Antonio Villaraigosa, and things don't quite go so well during a voice vote counting of the ayes and nos; when the nos were clearly in the  majority three times, he quickly announced to avoid further embarrassment, "In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative." Now THAT was funny

Side note: Tony (now Anthony) Villaraigosa has a very interesting/troubled past, including his last name, which used to be Villar, but many say he combined it with his ex-wife's named so as to be more politically expedient as a Hispanic.
Referenced: http://www.latina.com/political-scandals-antonio-villaraigosa et al.

After UCLA, Villaraigosa attended the People's College of Law (PCL), an unaccredited law school that promotes labor union causes in Los Angeles. His desire to practice law has been prevented due to his repeated inability to pass the California Bar Exam, which he has failed four times. After PCL, he became a field representative/organizer with the United Teachers Los Angeles. He later served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Federation of Government Employees. I only bring it up as he is held as a poster-boy for the dems, and this is the 2012 Democratic National Convention Agenda thread. There's slime on both sides of the aisle.

More about Tony's life here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Villaraigosa

[PB the Deplorable]

I would also add something else that should not be considered a commodity:  homes

And with a record number of Americans on food stamps, add food.  So what is it exactly that motivates us to go to work or start a business if all this stuff is 'free', er, no longer a commodity?  Maybe the best workers get the best pot and seats at ballgames, nothing more?

So who decides who gets what or who lives where?  And why are we handing these decisions over to someone else instead of deciding for ourselves what we want and working toward getting it?  I really don't understand the rush to hand over our freedom and personal liberty.

[BobGrau]

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER...

First two and a half minutes were indeed refreshingly honest... then the guy goes into some bullshit routine about how america used to be such a wonderful, moral, fine upstanding nation blah blah blah.
Nonsense. America was never particularly wonderful and, more to the point, it's not a particularly bad place now. This idea that 'america has lost it's way' is just as false, emotive and manipulative as saying it's the greatest country in the world.

You're doing ok, america. Calm down and stop listening to these idiots who want to tweak your emotions in a bid to grab a few votes make some advertising revenue.

[Zircon]

Paper*Boy ...

The liberals and progressives have been convinced that capitalism and the motivation to achieve is not only immoral but impossible for the average person to achieve.

Our educational system doesn't teach the advantages and goodness of our nation. They also do not teach competitiveness and personal accountability in applying yourself. They do not emphasize a technical education and taking on the hard subjects - the hard work like mathematics and sciences. The Asians do so naturally they achieve. They get the high paying jobs - where they still exist.

Social sciences and personal touchy-feely things are what is encouraged now. Sociology, psychology, communications, human relations etc. People know more about what has been taught them is wrong with our system, what is right with social justice, victimhood and their "right" to get paid as much for flipping burgers or delivering pizza as an engineer. Look at the democratic platform about equal pay for "unequal" work.

Note only a net gain of 300,000 jobs has occurred since Obama took over - not 4.5 million. Also more people are unemployed now than at the height of the recession under Bush in 2008 (source - CNN).

People were becoming lazy years ago. With reduced trained talent, technical jobs went offshore. Now even Obama supporting companies are letting thousands of employees go and shipping work over to places like the Philippines. And those are not highly technical types of jobs.

Companies would have remained here and employed Americans if the government tax structures on business had been more friendly. I can tell you about Boeing in Washington state who went to Chicago, offloaded much production to Asia and shut down plants in several cities in the Evergreen state because city and state government decided that the golden goose wasn't laying enough eggs for them. I mean it was abusive like $100/hour per employee in Renton to be given to the city of Renton by Boeing. Lots of employees. Renton was a cesspool then and remains one now - even with all that money once coming in. Typical government waste and tons of social programs funded by hard working people and a highly successful company. You would not believe how lucrative it once was for those on the dole in King Country in the 1980s-1990s.

[onan]

So I'll try a couple of axioms to illustrate my point:

Richard Hoagland is right when he correctly states, "Mars is a planet." I'd hasten to suggest that most rational people also find him to be a certifiable nutjob.
John Lear is an accomplished pilot, so is correct when says he can fly aircraft. I think most would find him even more certifiably functionally delusional than Hoagland.
Steven Greer obtained his medical degree, so he is right by saying the heart is a vital organ. Not much beyond that, he's a lunatic.
Catherine Austin Fitts has an MBA in finance. So she knows money... well, kind of. She used to be rich with a mansion and Ferrari, but now is underwater with her house in Tennessee. But when she goes off into 9-11-truther land, and countless other conspiracies, I maintain she is an intellectually vacuous nutjob.

To use a conceptual metaphor or analogy:

Richard Hoagland is to Steven Greer, as
John Lear is to Catherine Austin Fitts.

∴ Catherine Austin Fitts is nutty.


Can we all agree this should be part of our party's platform? (Unless you're Antonio Villaraigosa, and things don't quite go so well during a voice vote counting of the ayes and nos; when the nos were clearly in the  majority three times, he quickly announced to avoid further embarrassment, "In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative." Now THAT was funny

Side note: Tony (now Anthony) Villaraigosa has a very interesting/troubled past, including his last name, which used to be Villar, but many say he combined it with his ex-wife's named so as to be more politically expedient as a Hispanic.
Referenced: http://www.latina.com/political-scandals-antonio-villaraigosa et al.

After UCLA, Villaraigosa attended the People's College of Law (PCL), an unaccredited law school that promotes labor union causes in Los Angeles. His desire to practice law has been prevented due to his repeated inability to pass the California Bar Exam, which he has failed four times. After PCL, he became a field representative/organizer with the United Teachers Los Angeles. He later served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Federation of Government Employees. I only bring it up as he is held as a poster-boy for the dems, and this is the 2012 Democratic National Convention Agenda thread. There's slime on both sides of the aisle.

More about Tony's life here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Villaraigosa

I probably should have left this subject alone.

I am not sure what you wrote prior to "So I'll try..." I do know this the CIA did traffic in cocaine. I also know that the US at times in the past did some rather underhanded testing on unknown populations. Is it that much conjecture to go further? probably. But as you have posted and many others from similar points of view have suggested the government is the enemy. I have to wonder and I hope you can be objective when I ask if a republican said it would it have been as offensive?

Maybe Fitts is a nutjob... until today I hadn't given her any thought.

As to your axioms pretty much agree with ya.

[onan]

First two and a half minutes were indeed refreshingly honest... then the guy goes into some bullshit routine about how america used to be such a wonderful, moral, fine upstanding nation blah blah blah.
Nonsense. America was never particularly wonderful and, more to the point, it's not a particularly bad place now. This idea that 'america has lost it's way' is just as false, emotive and manipulative as saying it's the greatest country in the world.

You're doing ok, america. Calm down and stop listening to these idiots who want to tweak your emotions in a bid to grab a few votes make some advertising revenue.

No we are not ok. And placating isn't the answer. We can be better. I don't have the "McAvoy speech" memorized but I believe he was stating we used to have a reverence for intellect and reasoned debate/discussion. We don't have that today.