Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

Here is another jewel of a quote from Bugliosi's book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. This quote occurs on p259 and 260 of the hard cover version. It brings common sense out in the open relative to the hideous unnecessary war in Iraq conjured up by the Bushmurderers. The quote occurs after Bugliosi explains how President Reagan and his henchman Donald Rumsfeld assured Hussein on December 20, 1983 that he could count on America being in his corner in his war on Iran of the 80s.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK QUOTE: But this is all relatively insignificant when compared to the real reason why the notion that Hussein was a threat to this country (USA) is too preposterous for words. A few days after Bush gave his first televised speech to the nation (October 7, 2002) asserting that Hussein was an imminent threat to this country, I (Bugliosi) was having my five strands of hair trimmed at a seven-dollars-a-cut barber I've been going to for years. Joe (his barber, not his real name) is a rather bright and very conservative fellow. His weakness, like that of the overwhelming majority of people, is that he doesn't like to give his mind a workout. I asked him, "Joe, if someone gave Saddam Hussein an atomic bomb and gave him the choice of either dropping it on Baghdad or New York City, what would HE (HUSSEIN) do?" I already knew, of course, what Joe would say, and he didn't disappoint me. "New York City," he answered quickly. "No, Joe," I said. " You are 100 percent wrong. Obviously, he'd drop it on Baghdad. Hussein, as you know, Joe, is a human monster. Why would he care if thousands of Iraqis were killed? He's been murdering his people for years. If he dropped a bomb on Baghdad, he'd be safely ensconced in a bunker somewhere and he'd be just fine. But, Joe, if he dropped it on New York City, he'd be dead the following day. And guess what, Joe?" "What?" "The last I heard, Hussein wants to live." Joe stared at me for a long moment, then said, "I guess if you put it that way." Whereupon I responded, "Joe, there is no other way to put it."

 

The notion that Hussein would do something that would only serve to ensure his annihilation is too ludicrous to even contemplate. Hussein, obviously (as opposed to the Islamic fundamentalists who crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11), desperately wanted to live. This incontrovertible reality was confirmed beyond all doubt when, at the time of his capture and arrest on December 13, 2003, in the small town of ad-Dawr in Iraq, near Tikrit, he was found hiding like a rat at the bottom of an eight-foot spider hole near a small mud-walled compound he was living in. "Don't shoot," he said to his military captors. This all makes the notion of his wanting to attack the United States of America all the more insane. I mean, here's someone who had two people, independent of each other, testing every morsel of food that he ate, who slept in a different bed every night; someone who owned forty, yes, forty palaces and loved his life as the supreme dictator of his country. Why would he do anything at all that could only jeopardize his existence? He would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

 

It's so downright silly that one could make it the subject of a cartoon. You know, Qusay, one of Hussein's sons, asks his father why he's not eating his eggs, and Hussein responds, "Qusay, Abdul has already tested the food on my plate, but Habib hasn't yet. By the way, is our nuclear bomb still on schedule for the White House at 2:30 this afternoon?"

 

"Ah, "but the war hawks say, "if Hussein wouldn't drop a bomb on us because he'd be afraid of retaliation, he could secretly give the bomb to a group of terrorists like Al Qaeda, who would." But again, Hussein would still be doing something that could cause his annihilation the moment it was discovered, which it almost assuredly would be. Everyone knows that three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead. Indeed, Hussein would know he'd be destroyed even if it were never proven he was complicit and was merely suspected that he was. As Joseph C. Wilson, chief mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991, said at the time: "Hussein has long known that every terrorist act, and particularly a sophisticated one, raises the question of his involvement and invites blame." (And of course we know that even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush and his people successfully convinced the majority of Americans that he did.

END OF BUGLIOSI QUOTE

 

This quote gives an interesting 'what if' mind experiment that makes it crystal clear that even an evil dictator normally wants to survive. In fact, Hussein's whole tenure as leader of Iraq was built on his survival. Recall how he had 20 look-a-likes pretending to be him? He used that strategy to ferret out plots to assassinate him. Hussein was damn good at survival in a nation that reaks with assassinations like in most of the Middle East. Remember Sadat? Even Israel has had it's leader assassinated.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next are interesting Ratings of Countries found in Bugliosi's book.

 

Every red-blooded patriotic American knows and has been taught thoroughly that the rest of the world envies our way of life and would give anything to be one of us. This propaganda is simply untrue, today. Few Norwegians wish to leave their country to become American citizens. In fact, I cannot remember ever meeting one in my life time of 69 years. Of course, in the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a torrent of immigrants looking for a new life in America from the rest of the world looking for the land of freedom and opportunity. Times have changed. Mostly it is third world countries that wish to invade our borders these days. Mexico leads the pack of such nations. Illegal Mexican's randomly come and go over our porous borders as we well know.

 

There are plenty of good reasons for Mexicans wishing to come to the USA. Mexico has done virtually nothing to better its people favoring an elitist economy that favors their upper classes. I.e. Mexico is the way that the USA is heading. They are already there. We are in transit. Bugliosi points this out dramatically in the next quote from his book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder.

 

We still have hope to rebuild our nation's downtrodden because we are an enormously rich country with the ability to provide education and health care for all. All we need is a government that has the will to rebuild our middle and lower classes. Trickle down economics destroys the middle classes while enriching the robber barons of today. Reagan had much to do with starting the downfall of our middle classes. No doubt he will be reviled like the stupid scoundrel that he was eventually as history starts its inevitable investigation of what went on in his union-busting administration that started the ball rolling towards oil dependence on the middle east while bankrupting 2000 S&Ls for profiting parasitic thieves like the Bushmurderers.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI's QUOTE P.244 of THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER:

General Clark notes that although we are presently the world's only superpower, it is just an illusion that this can never change. He points to the tremendous economic development in China and India, countries that have "four or five times America's population," and says this could result in these nations attaining superpower status in the foreseeable future. "Scale is one of the most important laws of economics, and they've got scale over us."

 

In some other signs of national decline, America now ranks number 9 in the world on the Adult Literacy Scale (survey by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development); number 12 on student reading ability (OECD); number 37 (France is number 1, Italy 2) on the Healthcare Quality Index (World Economic Forum Report); number 29 on life expectancy (UN Human Development Report); in a real surprise, number 48 (Norway and Iceland are tied at number 1) on the Journalistic Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders); number 13 on the quality of life survey (Economist magazine); number 45 on the Environmental Sustainability Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy; Center for International Earth Science Information Network of Columbia University); number 3 (the UK pound sterling is number 1 and the fifteen-nation European Union euro number 2) in overall currency strength (Financial Times Stock Exchange); and number 32 in its infant mortality rate (Save the Children Report).

END OF QUOTE

 

Bugliosi goes on to say that he has not the faintest idea why America is in decline. But there is no question that the important standards of measurement show dangerous signs of decline in the USA. He goes on to say that he knows that Americans have been inculcated in their belief that they are lucky to be citizens of the greatest nation in the world, "blessed by nature and by God, and therefore nothing can ever topple us from our pedestal." Then he goes on to say that he does not see how we can continue our "moral failure" and "cultural degeneration" without losing the right to claim greatest nation in the world.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another quote from Bugliosi's book indicating the the USA is falling further and further behind in math and science. The USA is also falling behind in most technical fields that depend heavily on our students learning math and science. In an earlier post it was explained how the founders of Google claimed to Obama when he visited their headquarters that Google could not find US citizens with the right University majors in technical fields any longer. And this explains why they were hiring noncitizens to do what US citizens use to do. Google's management claimed that, like so many other huge corporations depending on technical discipline, they have been forced to import citizens from other countries who have largely obtained their training at universities subsidized by US taxpayers dollars because US students no longer wished to take the hard subjects.

 

The initiator of this topic explained that most of the US students avoided high tech, math, and science departments because most of these subjects were thoroughly taken over by foreign-born professors and chair persons who had little ability to converse in English and much less desire to deal with US born students. It was suggested that all anyone has to do to understand the truth in this statement is to go to RATEMYPROFESSORS.COM and study the evaluations of students who tried to take math classes only to find out that the teachers could not speak idiomatic English sufficiently to explain difficult subjects. Many of them just decided to change their major.

 

The result of the change in our university math and science programs is that our US born brightest students stay away from departments taken over by foreign-born professors. Who can blame them? The founder of this topic earned his Ph.D. at a time when most of the high level math classes were taught by US citizen professors who were able to lecture clearly in English. The founder of this topic would not have studied mathematics in the current environment. In fact, in the late 60s when he was studying at Wayne State University he signed up for a class in Probability theory taught by one of a few Chinese professors of mathematics. The professor spoke very poor English. He read from the textbook line by line, sometimes writing the exact words and formulas on the blackboard from the book. This situation was easily dealt with because there were many other classes taught by fine US born professors who lectured very clearly in English. The class was dropped and replaced by one taught by a fine US born teacher. Nowadays there are few choices. Students would be forced to take classes from teachers with no ability to teach due to deficient language skills because of the overwhelming influx of non-US born professors in math, science and technical fields.

 

Bugliosi gives supporting statistics on what has happened at our universities on p.243 with respect to math and science. Here is the quote.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI'S QUOTE ON p.243 of The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder:

 

Charles Wilson, the president of General Motors in the 1940s and early 1950s, coined the phrase "As General Motors goes, so goes America." And this was true for most of the twentieth century, GM being the biggest corporation in America---in fact, the world. But today, not only isn't General Motors the biggest corporation in the world, it's not even the biggest auto manufacturer. In 2006, and for the first time ever, Japan's Toyota overtook GM in auto sales.

 

As far as science is concerned, in an October 13, 2005, New York Times article it was reported that " last year, more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China, compared to 350,000 in India and 70,000 in the United States. Recently, American 12th graders performed below the international average for 21 countries on general knowledge in math and science. Chemical companies last year, shut 70 facilities in the United States and marked 40 for closure. Of 120 large chemical plants under construction globally, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

END OF QUOTE

 

Why should the brightest students in the USA study math and science when there is little hope of getting a good education at the university level? Do you think students in the 9th through 12th grade levels do not know what is going on at the universities? Believe it. They do. I can recall that this was true even in 1957 when I graduated from Cooley High School in Detroit. I had decided to major in engineering because I knew that there was a big demand for high tech graduates. Students look ahead. Nowadays our brightest students are looking at jobs in culinary arts, medicine, and a host of other disciplines where they might still get a good education from professors who speak English clearly.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has fundamentalist religion done to and for us lately?

 

Well, a lot could be said on this point. Fundamentalism has caused separation and hostility between citizens along religious lines for one. In fact, religion, in general, whether fundamentalistic or not has had exactly the same effect. Coming together as a unified nation should not depend on everyone having exactly the same fundamental beliefs associated with any religion. Such a formula for living together was hoped to be eliminated by our founding fathers.

 

Fundamentalists tend to want to make everyone think like them. Fundamentalists often wish to infiltrate government of the whole people with their narrow beliefs based on nebulous interpretations of the Bible, Koran, and other holy books. Our founding fathers believed in God for the mostpart. But they never believed that it was a necessary element for patriotism. Separation of church and government was and still is a major part of our philosophy of government in the USA.

 

Bugliosi views overzealous religion as a threat to our well-being as a nation. This point becomes graphically clear on p.247 of his book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. Prior to this quote Bugliosi is cautioning the US citizen to beware of flag wavers using their religion as a measure of patriotism.

 

BEGIN QUOTE on P.247:

 

Another more ominous sign is the increasing religiosity of America. While Europe has for the most part virtually discarded organized religion--increasingly, priests are being utilized, for instance, only in a ceremonial capacity for things like weddings and funerals, and churches are closing throughout Europe because of very low attendance--America is the only nation in the Western world (including nations like Canada and the United Kingdom, which are thought to be more similar to the United States) that is becoming more religious. Indeed, the biggest-selling books in America for the past several years (with sales figures in the millions of copies) are religious ones dealing with the "rapture," which, I'm told, is the time, coming soon within our lives, when Jesus will return and sweep all born-again followers, from their homes or cars or wherever they are, into his embrace, and he will take them to heaven, leaving behind on earth the heathens who will destroy each other in the Book of Revelation's Armageddon or Apocalypse, their souls burning forevermore in hell. Some estimate that close to 40 percent of Bush's total raw vote in 2004 was provided by self-identified evangelical Christians, a great number of whom subscribe to such beliefs. If all of this isn't evidence of grinding stupidity, what is? Unbelievably, a 2004 national poll found that 71 percent of Americans said they actually "would die [and hence, it would seem, kill] for their God/beliefs." Isn't that big-time scary?

 

Until a few years ago, I never, even once, had anything but a secure feeling living in America. It was better than that. The thought never even entered my mind, once, of being frightened about living in America. But believe it or not--and others have told me they feel the very same way--I now do not feel 100 percent secure in America. It's beginning to be a scary (however slight) country. You can't have what Ken Starr did to Clinton, and what the Supreme Court did in Bush Versus Gore, and what the Bush administration did in Iraq happen without its having an alarming effect on you, at least not if you're a sentient person.

 

END OF QUOTE

 

After this quote Bugliosi states that what we have is mostly danger signals. He, like most rational folks, believe there will always be a hope to recover from a disasterous administration like the current one. He goes on to mention and discuss in detail the threat of our US Supreme court being even more contaminated by extreme right wingers than by real statesmen and stateswomen.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Joe,

 

This thread is truly one of the few significant contributions to this board and I want to thank you for doggedly posting it.

 

The observations of the truth you make here are remarkably cogent and go a long way toward explaining much of the confusion Americans wrestle with regarding their political system and the nature of politics, generally.

 

Your post #12 should be read and re-read by everyone on this board until it is properly understood.

 

As one who believes the Republicans have waged war against a proper government for a quarter century, I love this paragraph from post #21:

 

It should occur to most that it would be freakish to be totally conservative or totally liberal. One who is totally conservative would opt for never changing the status quo. It would be closely akin to what we think of as an anarchist or libertine who does not believe in any government control. The anarchist believes that government is an unnecessary intrusion in personal lives. They believe that laissez faire would lead to a natural system where government policing is not necessary.

 

This paragraph from your post #27 distills what I have been unsuccessful in conveying to our local "cons" on many an occasion:

 

The government with their 60 cents of the oil revenue use it to build an infrastructure that makes the oil pigs a hearty 8 cents profit. Without roads oil tankers go no where. And roads are just one of many infrastructures that the Oil companies (and all companies) need to make their profit. Do not equate government taxation with profit-making. Doing this is irrational. It misses the whole point of why we need a federal and local government. We need to maintain an infrastructure as well as the regulations for using it. Government is what makes our nation work. Without it there is no corporate profits. Theodore Roosevelt, a great Republican, made this observation a long time ago.

 

This, from your post #31:

 

I studied Zen Buddhism in the 60s. I practiced meditation. I read about the notion of Koans leading to enlightenment. Many good things come from stopping ones out-of-control-opinions not based on truthful facts. However, too many self-styled Zen followers think that it is about absurd simplicity of no-thought. Zen masters are not like that. They are in fact extremely tuned to consciousness of reality. Reality is not simple. Zen masters know that it is difficult to filter out the static caused by our own inability to focus our conscious minds. So, they whack their novice followers with sticks on occasion to wake them up. Zen does not result in idiotic blank mindedness. It results in ultra-consciousness. It results in releasing creative energy to actually experience reality with its many headedness. Your comments seem to gloss over this truth about Zen Buddhism. Zen does not make anyone into a mindless idiot.

 

reminds us that any real spiritual practice serves to raise and sharpen consciousness, not dull it. Even a study of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth will illustrate that he demanded we question the currently accepted wisdom and do the work necessary to look further to what was Truth. How different a perspective than what is offered by our modern day "sleep peacefully" fundamentalists.

 

Another key point that you make repeatedly, is that government should do best what it does best and the private sector should do best what it does best. Without both of these, our system is broken.

 

There is so much here in your entire thread that all I can say at this point is: please continue to contribute as you have. For what it's worth, your insight is worth serious study (and I will be rereading it, again) and you should know it is not falling on deaf ears.

 

Skeptic

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Joe,

 

This thread is truly one of the few significant contributions to this board and I want to thank you for doggedly posting it.

 

The observations of the truth you make here are remarkably cogent and go a long way toward explaining much of the confusion Americans wrestle with regarding their political system and the nature of politics, generally.

 

Your post #12 should be read and re-read by everyone on this board until it is properly understood.

 

As one who believes the Republicans have waged war against a proper government for a quarter century, I love this paragraph from post #21:

This paragraph from your post #27 distills what I have been unsuccessful in conveying to our local "cons" on many an occasion:

This, from your post #31:

reminds us that any real spiritual practice serves to raise and sharpen consciousness, not dull it. Even a study of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth will illustrate that he demanded we question the currently accepted wisdom and do the work necessary to look further to what was Truth. How different a perspective than what is offered by our modern day "sleep peacefully" fundamentalists.

 

Another key point that you make repeatedly, is that government should do best what it does best and the private sector should do best what it does best. Without both of these, our system is broken.

 

There is so much here in your entire thread that all I can say at this point is: please continue to contribute as you have. For what it's worth, your insight is worth serious study (and I will be rereading it, again) and you should know it is not falling on deaf ears.

 

Skeptic

Thanks more than you can imagine. I need substantiation that I am not a lone voice in a vacuum. I am a truthaholic. I have been blessed and cursed with a monstrous desire to analyze anything and everything. In short, I drive my wife nuts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...so much for "higher quality blogger"...

 

Republican Hypocrisy Revealed

 

"I think people are using (pedophilia)

for political purposes." -- Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum

 

Psychologists say conservatism

is a mental illness

 

Republican philanderer and hypocrite

Newt Gingrich was cheating on his

wife while denouncing President Bill Clinton's extramarital affair

 

Republican serial killer Ted Bundy

was hired by the Republican Party

 

Republican activist Matthew Glavin,

who preached family values, was caught

masturbating in public and fondling

an undercover park ranger

 

Dick Nixon organized a burglary while

president and engaged in

criminal activity to cover it up

 

Republican anti-abortion activist

Neal Horsley admitted to having

sex with a mule

 

Republican Congressman

Edward Schrock resigned from

Congress after he was caught searching for sex on a gay telephone service

 

Republican Mayor Jim West

championed an anti-gay agenda,

but was later found to be gay himself

 

Republican voter Timothy McVeigh

bombed Oklahoma City

 

Republican preacher Jimmy Swaggart

preached fidelity, but cheated on

his wife with a prostitute

 

Republican Party Chairman Sam Walls,

who is married, was urged to drop his

candidacy for Congress when it was found he likes to dress up

in women's clothing

 

Republican Congressman Bob Livingston was planning to vote for

impeaching President Clinton

for sexual improprieties until

it was disclosed he is an adulterer

 

Republican Congressman Henry Hyde

denounced President Clinton's extramarital affair, but was later found

to be an adulterer himself

 

Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the

30-million member National Association of Evangelicals, denounced gays and illegal drugs but was later exposed

as a gay Crystal Meth user

 

Republican Senator Bob Packwood

resigned from Congress after 29

women accused him of sexual harrassment

 

Fox News finds the

weapons of mass destruction!

(Okay, this isn't "hypocrisy"

but I think it's funny anyway)

 

"He wasn't knowingly revealing

a covert agent's undercover status." -- Ann Coulter, author of "Treason,"

in defense of Karl Rove's outing of an undercover CIA agent

 

Child sex parties and the Reagan/Bush White House....

armchairsubversive.org

 

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17290.htm

 

 

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

 

 

I'm sorry, I just can't get my head around this topic. There are sins on either side but cheeze! The things out there about the current and past Republican party members is just over the top.

 

 

REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILIA

 

Republican legislator Scott Muschany was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl.

Republican chief of staff Eric Feltner pleaded guilty to showing pornography to a 13-year old girl.

Republican presidential campaign official Matthew Joseph Elliott was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child.

Republican Party Chairman Donald Fleischman was charged with two counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to a child.

Republican prosecutor John David Roy Atchison was arrested for soliciting sex from a 5-year old girl, then killed himself three weeks later. At the time of his arrest, Atchison was an "assistant U.S. attorney" appointed by President Bush's attorney general.

Republican city councilman John Bryan killed himself after police began investigating allegations that he had molested three girls, including two of his adopted daughters, ages 12 and 15.

Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.

Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.

Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.

Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.

Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.

Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys -- ages ten and 12 -- during a six-year period.

Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.

Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.

Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting sex from an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.

Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano pleaded guilty to fondling a 14-year-old girl.

Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.

Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.

Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtin was convicted of molesting an underage teenage boy and sentenced to serve six to 18 months in prison.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

 

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

 

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

 

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

 

Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

 

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency. See excerpt of one prisoner's report here and his full report here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by AmericanCitizen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the following:

 

1-A system that is completely perfect – in such a system change (any) is irrational.

2-A system that is completely flawed – in such a system preservation (any) is irrational.

3-A system that is flawed – Both change and preservation is required to move towards perfection.

 

The bad has to be changed and the good must be preserved, these arguments are very basic and self-evident.

Generally these terms are related to others, but not necessarily so:

 

Preservation – Protection – Defense – Conservation – Stationary – Static – Old – etc…

Liberalism – Offence – Revolution – Mobile – Dynamic – Young – etc…

 

Typically conservatives that sustain a certain order deem liberals as idealist or adventurous because their vision or plan does not exist yet; this attitude is wrong just as the attitude that liberals show conservatives because they think they are old fashioned or close minded. Change and conservation are both subject to logical judgment, neither has any good or bad value inherently. Both can be evil depending on the context.

 

These seem to be the essence of all that is posted here based on the actual meaning of terms, at least from this one’s perspective.

 

Similar to the argument a postmodernist would advocate: “Nothing is certain” or “Nothing is true” or “Nothing is absolute”, but surely such an encompassing claim is by itself and in itself, absolute, certain or true!

 

Is it certain that nothing is certain? One cannot claim logic and reason and yet not believe in absolute.

 

However liberalism as an ideology is a different subject worthy of a deeper analysis. Critics of liberalism even argue that liberalism is less about freedom and more about interaction and the move to increase interaction, particularly so about liberal market.

 

It is noteworthy that both liberalism and conservatism require freedom, it would be naïve to think otherwise; furthermore even liberalism has some share of conservatism, at least in the sense that liberalism itself must be conserved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider the following:

 

1-A system that is completely perfect – in such a system change (any) is irrational.

2-A system that is completely flawed – in such a system preservation (any) is irrational.

3-A system that is flawed – Both change and preservation is required to move towards perfection.

 

The bad has to be changed and the good must be preserved, these arguments are very basic and self-evident.

Generally these terms are related to others, but not necessarily so:

 

Preservation – Protection – Defense – Conservation – Stationary – Static – Old – etc…

Liberalism – Offence – Revolution – Mobile – Dynamic – Young – etc…

 

Typically conservatives that sustain a certain order deem liberals as idealist or adventurous because their vision or plan does not exist yet; this attitude is wrong just as the attitude that liberals show conservatives because they think they are old fashioned or close minded. Change and conservation are both subject to logical judgment, neither has any good or bad value inherently. Both can be evil depending on the context.

 

These seem to be the essence of all that is posted here based on the actual meaning of terms, at least from this one’s perspective.

 

Similar to the argument a postmodernist would advocate: “Nothing is certain” or “Nothing is true” or “Nothing is absolute”, but surely such an encompassing claim is by itself and in itself, absolute, certain or true!

 

Is it certain that nothing is certain? One cannot claim logic and reason and yet not believe in absolute.

 

However liberalism as an ideology is a different subject worthy of a deeper analysis. Critics of liberalism even argue that liberalism is less about freedom and more about interaction and the move to increase interaction, particularly so about liberal market.

 

It is noteworthy that both liberalism and conservatism require freedom, it would be naïve to think otherwise; furthermore even liberalism has some share of conservatism, at least in the sense that liberalism itself must be conserved.

Agreed. Both conservative and liberal positions can enhance freedom. Freedom really is not what distinguishes the liberal position from the conservative position. Simply put, the conservative way is to not use government power to control but let the private sector decide what is right. I.e. Good conservativism does not restrict freedoms. The liberal position invariably means that government intervenes in an issue using its control. Most of the time when the government acts using its power freedom is enhanced by the protection of government action. Freedom to do criminal activity is prevented by government control using law enforcement. Who would not wish to restrict the freedom of criminal activities?

 

The notion of liberty is not an important distinction relative to a conservative or liberal position. It is usually quite incidental to the position. The outcome of either conservative hands-off and liberal hands-on policies is usually directed towards making a better community. I.e. Whether the position enhances freedom or not is usually not the main reason for taking a liberal or conservative position on a given issue.

 

Most folks confuse liberalism with enhancing liberty because of the 'lib' in both labels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly partisan politics is a good thin; if it weren't we'd be looking for "real" jobs instead of being politicians?

 

 

I find it interesting that there is so much division between the white hats and pink hats and green hats and purple hats.........

 

ahhhhhh..... My America....... everyone out for theirself, no one left standing? Divided and conquered?

 

1-A system that is completely perfect – in such a system change (any) is irrational.

The perfection of the American political system is its adaptability- its obedience to the only true constant of creation: Change will occur

2-A system that is completely flawed – in such a system preservation (any) is irrational.

The imperfection of partisan politics is complete and defunct; the hats have it: Nothing that they want and no apologies.

3-A system that is flawed – Both change and preservation is required to move towards perfection.

Reinvention; the act of tearing down what is - no stone left upon another - to make way a way forward toward a more perfect union. This is the war I wage with my word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McBush's Surge Was An Example of Rearranging The Chairs on The Titantic...

 

Trying to patch up a botchy war with a surge never made sense. A surge for an unnecessary war is tantamount to rearranging the chairs on the Titantic. Obama along with a lot of other good folks saw the futility and stupidity of escalating an unnecessary war in Iraq with a surge. Little has changed in Iraq because of the unnecessary surge. Normal life in Iraq is still near impossible given its civil war, huge rate of unemployment, destroyed infrastructure, lack of a strong government, and its occupation by US soldiers.

 

Possibly, the Bushbunch feel like they justified their prolongation of the unnecessary murders of innocents by temporarily slowing down the rate of killing. Their reasoning was and is still absurd. Their war on terrorism in Iraq has no focus because it is not possible to have a real war on terrorism since Al Qaeda terrorists have no real army, no country, no indentity and a phantom leader in hiding. Combatting terrorism has always been the job of clandestine forces, CIA, FBI, paid snitches, alert citizenry, ATF, police, spies, border guards working for immigration and other nonmilitary type action groups.

 

Clearly, one cannot fight terrorism using the usual warmaking techniques with soldiers on the ground. The surging soldiers were given a foolish mission. Many of our troops were confused about what they were suppose to do other than establish additional presence in Baghdad. No doubt the so-called politically-motivated surge offered dangers to innocent Iraqis trying to survive in the war-torn areas around Baghdad. The surge was simply a political diversion to the whole failure of attacking a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism. The impact of the surge was less than a mosquito bite to Al Qaeda. And it likely killed a number of Iraqis who were not terrorists but simply trying to free their nation from the illegal occupation by US soldiers.

 

The notion that a war on terrorism can be won promoted by the ignoramus John McCain in the Republican National Convention is just another political ploy to make him look like a macho warrior. His rehashing of his time in captivity is a similar ploy. Our we not growing weary of hearing about his 6 year torment in Hanoi rehashed by almost all of the speakers at the RNC? Why does being a captive in Hanoi make McCain presidential? He apparently has not even learned the lesson of what horror an unnecessary war can cause despite living 6 years of it. Do we want anyone that stupid to run our nation? Clearly, McCain is no Kerry. Kerry knew the horrors of the unnecessary war in Vietnam and spoke out against more of the same in the unnecessary war in Iraq. Some guys just do not get it? McCain is such a bozo.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McBush's Surge Was An Example of Rearranging The Chairs on The Titantic...

 

Trying to patch up a botchy war with a surge never made sense. A surge for an unnecessary war is tantamount to rearranging the chairs on the Titantic. Obama along with a lot of other good folks saw the futility and stupidity of escalating an unnecessary war in Iraq with a surge. Little has changed in Iraq because of the unnecessary surge. Normal life in Iraq is still near impossible given its civil war, huge rate of unemployment, destroyed infrastructure, lack of a strong government, and its occupation by US soldiers.

This is why we're aren't finished yet. Normal life in Iraq wasn't possible before we went in there. A war is won by accomplishing one simple task at a time, not all at once. Iraq's own security forces are still too weak to fend for themselves at this point. If we pull out now, we are screwing Iraq by not finishing what we started.

Possibly, the Bushbunch feel like they justified their prolongation of the unnecessary murders of innocents by temporarily slowing down the rate of killing. Their reasoning was and is still absurd. Their war on terrorism in Iraq has no focus because it is not possible to have a real war on terrorism since Al Qaeda terrorists have no real army, no country, no indentity and a phantom leader in hiding. Combatting terrorism has always been the job of clandestine forces, CIA, FBI, paid snitches, alert citizenry, ATF, police, spies, border guards working for immigration and other nonmilitary type action groups.

Exactly. They don't have a country, therefore they are in someone ELSE'S country. You would be right if our government was made up of a bunch of wimps. We justify it by saying that we just slowed down the rate of killing? No. We've slowed down and even STOPPED the killing of American citizens.

 

Clearly, one cannot fight terrorism using the usual warmaking techniques with soldiers on the ground. The surging soldiers were given a foolish mission. Many of our troops were confused about what they were suppose to do other than establish additional presence in Baghdad. No doubt the so-called politically-motivated surge offered dangers to innocent Iraqis trying to survive in the war-torn areas around Baghdad. The surge was simply a political diversion to the whole failure of attacking a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism. The impact of the surge was less than a mosquito bite to Al Qaeda. And it likely killed a number of Iraqis who were not terrorists but simply trying to free their nation from the illegal occupation by US soldiers.

Saddam had documentation linking him to different terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Where the f--- do you think terrorists get their arsenal and funds? France? No. And about attacking a nation for the wrong reason. Even if that was so, what has happened cannot be undone. We must finish what we've started. It would be best to finish it right, rather than just finishing quickly. Although, finishing right and quickly would be the best possibility.

The notion that a war on terrorism can be won promoted by the ignoramus John McCain in the Republican National Convention is just another political ploy to make him look like a macho warrior. His rehashing of his time in captivity is a similar ploy. Our we not growing weary of hearing about his 6 year torment in Hanoi rehashed by almost all of the speakers at the RNC? Why does being a captive in Hanoi make McCain presidential? He apparently has not even learned the lesson of what horror an unnecessary war can cause despite living 6 years of it. Do we want anyone that stupid to run our nation? Clearly, McCain is no Kerry. Kerry knew the horrors of the unnecessary war in Vietnam and spoke out against more of the same in the unnecessary war in Iraq. Some guys just do not get it? McCain is such a bozo.

Terrorism will never cease. Now we are trying to boost Iraq's own defenses up so they will be able to fend off terrorism by themselves without our troops' help.

 

America should be concerned about the president's integrity and character, and past experiences show a lot about it. A ploy to make him look like a macho warrior? Maybe we should send you to a POW camp.

Edited by mr.vashman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the Bushmurdering liars attack Iraq a country that was shown to have no connection to Al Qaeda by our very own CIA whereas the Saudi friends of the Texas oil pigs supplied plenty of money to the Al Qaeda? Do you remember the Saudi Royalty who owned the horse War Emblem who died suddenly after it was found out by interrogations of a high ranking Al Qaeda prisoner that he was the go-between for the Saudi royalty and Al Qaeda? The other Saudi guy who was identified was found naked dead of dehydration in the desert. Do you remember how the Bushmurderers ushered the Bin Laden family safely out of the USA during the no fly period shortly after 9-11? They denied that they did it. Yet, there were witnesses all over the place.

 

Don't you know that Hussein was despised by Osama Bin Laden and Osama wished to attack Iraq himself without the help of the USA using his gang of terrorists? The CIA confirmed all of this. The truth is that the Texas oilpig Bush&company worked closely with the Saudi Royalty and the Saudi's Al Qaeda to justify taking over the oil fields of Iraq.

 

If the Bushmurdererofoursoldiers really wanted to stop Al Qaeda then they would have done so in Afghanistan. They let him escape on purpose. Don't you remember when the Bushmoron stated "I don't even think of Osama Bin Laden any more". It was in one of his conferences with the press that he confessed his lack of interest in really going after the Saudi's chief orchestrator of 9-11.

 

Don't you wonder why the Bushmurderers have forgotten to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan? The answer is simple. He is one of them!!!! Osama gave them the Pearl Harbor that they needed in order to attack Iraq. All of this is confirmed in a number of good investigations. Read Bamford's book. Read Bugliosi's last book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. In fact, there are a number of books that give a strong case of circumstatial evidence for the Texas oil bunch conspiring with the Saudi royalty to control oil in the middle east using Al Qaeda. Osama Bin laden was just one of the pawns in their oil game. Don't you wonder why Al Qaeda has not created any more disturbances in the USA since 9-11. Simply put, they have not been given approval by the Saudis working with the Texas oil-pigs.

 

Do you like to be on the side of murderers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is our bought and paid for popular media doing lately?

 

They are hyping that Pallin lady as though she is running for president and not for the sideline job of Vice president. Frankly, she is much better for the eyeball to watch than the dried up burned out oldster McCain. So, I guess we cannot blame them. The problem is that she has no where near the experience or ability to be president. And who would bet on McCain lasting the next 4 years? You know he has fought off cancer in very recent times. His quick reversals on his old positions surely might be indicative of creeping senility or Alzheimers. Remember how Reagan fell asleep at the switch? Do we wish to risk that all over again?

 

The other day I had another moment of insight while watching Regis. Personally, I cannot stand the twit and much less his blabbering idiot partner. However, my wife loves them. So, I put up with their inane stupid idiotic show that tries to be entertaining. Still, I have to admit that Regis often has a quick wit or knows how to look stupidly funny to amuse his audience at times. But Regis and that lady partner who reminds me of a chittering chipmunk is not what is really on my mind at this moment.

 

I realized that our low-down Republican fascist corporate media will stoop to anything to affect the voting masses. While watching Regis yesterday Sep 8, 2008 I saw Regis do an attempt at a funny bit with a newspaper. His bit was not funny. However, it was revealing of the skulduggery of his bosses who pay his horribly bloated undue salary. The paper was folded so that its headline could be visibly seen. Guess what the headlines was in huge letters? McCAIN. You see? These corporate shills who run the ABC network will even try to influence elections subliminally. Do you really believe that Regis did not know what that headlines was? Regis is a bad entertainer but he is not stupid. He knows where his check comes from. He made sure that headline was smack dab in the faces of his credulous audiences.

 

Every psychologist in the world understands the power of influencing a psyche subliminally. Is there anyone reading this blog out there who remembers drive-in movies that would flash pictures of popcorn to induce the unsuspecting movie goers to buy popcorn? It was a low-down trick then and still is. But it worked. Understand it would have been easy to find a newspaper that did not flash the McCain name. Regis purposely stuck the headline in the faces of millions of his viewers suspiciously at the request of the corporate fascists who run his network. Employing subliminal unconscious perception is a subtle unscrupulous way of dignifying the McBush ticket. And it works. People bought popcorn at the drive-in movies in droves and they will buy McCain based on such psychological influence peddling.

 

Next I will give a quote that comes from one of my previous blogs on the PEOPLESFORUM.COM. This message was written on Sep 4, 2006.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Title-Identified is the Mother Whopper of All Political Non-sequiturs

Hacky political commentaries primarily on the Fox Network but also on many of the big time media networks have fallen prey to the non-sequitur of treating nations like they were individuals. These networks prove that they would do anything to make up a story no matter how hokey it is. By virtue of their bully pulpit they can make-believe all day long as long as gullible listeners trust them.

 

You will hear foolish commentaries on major TV political networks flipping the names of nations around like they were folks with one voice. Embodied in the news media's story-making is this absurd non-sequitur that nations have one monolithic voice. Today, networks are hyping Iran as an evil giant monster nation whose people monolithically with one voice wish to nuclear-bomb-annihilate the non-muslim nations like the USA, UK, USSR, and other powerful nations with real military power. This distortion of reality totally ignores the many good people in every nation such as Iran do not wish to commit mass suicide by starting a nuclear war against the rest of the world. The majority of people in any nation just want to survive peacfully without being attacked by more powerful nations with thousands of times more nuclear, biological, and conventional weapons. No nation is like one person with one voice. Governments sometimes attempt such nonsensical behavior as Hitler did in the 30s, however. We know where that got him despite his convincing his citizens that war was their best and only option.

 

Yet, the Bushabominatorsofallthatisdecent persist in spreading their propaganda lies using the media and hired news prostitutes who are wittingly or otherwise employed to convince the US citizen that they are under a horrendous threat of Iran rising up and showering the world around them with nuclear bombs in order to run the world as one huge Islamic state. Most Iranians are not stupid. They know that there is not one chance in a trillion that their mostly landlocked nation with a relatively puny military and little technological capability can dominate the world with their small-time nuclear program. The propaganda elements of the Bushabominators played this nonsensical bullpoop angle to inveigle the US government to agree to attack the weakling nation of Iraq at a cost of 300 billion and still rising costs to the US citizens who do not even have universal health care like most other industrialized nations. Of course, we know that much of the billions of dollars is winding up in the pockets of friends of the Bushlyingoilybastards like Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Blackwater, Bechtel, Exxon mobil and more.

 

America might not have the brightest people in the world when it comes to reacting to fear-tactics as was demonstrated by the huge lies that many swallowed in order to justify a pre-emptive attack on Hussein's Iraq. The strategy of painting Hussein as a perpetrator of terrorism worked with some of the dull-witted elements of the population of the USA despite smart anti-terrorists experts working for the government like Richard Clarke (head of anti-terrorist activities for the CIA) attempting to bring truth to the US population.

 

We can only hope that the fear-mongering tactics of the Bushbastards using the popular media does not work again and again to start WWIII. It is time for America to identify the non-sequitur embodied by the major networks in viewing nations like they are one person acting monolithically rather than highly diversified populations with a wide range of views on world politics.

 

END OF QUOTE

 

The point is that common sense should speak louder than media newsmakers. Especially, when the agenda of the major news media is to befriend whoever is in power to gain favorable regulation. Murdoch sure knows how to play the media game. The Fox Nutwork is the foremost among the networks using their bully pulpit to sway the public from using common sense and get favorable regulation for their media.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually below is a much more accurate synopsis of the mind and the negative aspect of political thinking in relation to those suffering from instituted mind control. Not only accurate but it is not a blog but rather scientific fact research by a renowed specialist.

 

Liberal-Progressive Mind Control

By Thomas E. Brewton

Socialism, of which liberal-progressivism is the American sect, is more than control of the economy. Most importantly it is mind-control through the public education system.

 

The Washington Times reports the latest liberal-progressive-socialist curtailment of personal freedom.

“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children in their own home,” said the Feb. 28 ruling by the California Appellate Court for the second district.

 

When they wish to overrule long-standing political liberties, liberals look to precedents of so-called international law and other nations’ customs. The socialist European Union, and Germany specifically , provide ammunition for abrogating educational liberties.

 

Why the animus of liberal courts and teachers’ unions against home schooling?

 

The obvious answer is that home schooling does a better job, revealing the poor quality of public education. Less obvious is the desire of home-schooling parents to teach Judeo-Christian moral principles, which directly conflicts with the public school aim of teaching the secular religion of liberal-progressive-socialism. Propagating that mind-set necessitates identifying as ignorance all ideas of fixed and timeless moral principles.

 

Such was the work primarily of John Dewey, the leading liberal-progressive theoretician of the early 1900s. He taught Columbia University students that Darwinian evolution had proved that everything, including morality, was continually evolving. In such a world there can be no timeless principles of morality. Rules for social behavior are simply whatever intellectuals think they ought to be in matters of sexual orientation, sexual promiscuity, and every sort of sensual gratification.

 

Under the impact of such schooling, the traditional family unit is no longer the bedrock of society. The norm tends toward single-parent units. Home-schooling by parents in traditional families is, to that style of moral relativism, a direct affront.

 

There is now abundant evidence, in all parts of the nation, that public-education students are inculcated with anti-Americanism and a moral relativism that will not even condemn the Nazi Holocaust. Liberal-progressivism teaches students that there are no real differences among nations, races, and cultures, even sexes. We are all homogeneous and ready for a single world government that will end wars and guarantee harmony and economic plenty, equally for all. In such a world, callow students must be conditioned to see every atrocity from the other guy’s view point and to avoid all judgments of right or wrong.

 

Liberal-progressives, it will be remembered, sympathized with Al Queda and blamed 9/11 on the capitalist greed of the United States.

 

The recent death of William F. Buckley, Jr. reminds us that, by the late 1940s, this disintegration of historical education was well established. Ivy League universities such as Yale had long since abandoned their founding mission of educating Puritan ministers. They had, as Buckley documented in “God and Man at Yale,” become overwhelmingly slanted toward liberal-progressivism.

 

Liberal-progressive-socialism is a world paradigm in which greedy capitalists become rich by grinding workers down to bare-subsistence levels of income, while forcing the workers to buy whatever products they produce, at whatever prices they elect to charge. Hence the endless harping in the New York Times about income inequality.

 

In that paradigm, social justice demands that the undeservedly rich capitalists be expropriated, either by seizing their property and placing it under collective ownership, or by imposing a multitude of regulations that convey the rights of ownership to the political state. This is known as socialization.

 

The most important element of liberal-progressive-socialism, however, is control of the educational system. Henri de Saint-Simon, who systematically conceptualized socialism in the first decades of the 19th century, wrote that the educational system must be controlled by the highest level of the political state’s intellectual councils, so that nothing other than the doctrine of socialism may be taught.

Oh fuss and bother as winnie the pooh would say. All I get out of this last blog is ungrounded unverified opinions based on feelings rather than facts. And I have a few of those of my own, too. For example, home school sucks wind. Home schooled children often do not develop socially the way children going to public and private schools. I admit that this observation is strictly an opinion based on our experience in our family run dance school. We have noticed that the home schooled children have difficulty in social situations at our dance school. I wonder if anyone has done a study on this observation.

 

If anyone out there knows of such a study, let me know. I plan to check the internet for such a study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was I Psychic or what?

 

Thumbing through my 2400 essay/blogs I came upon one that I would like to share with you all. This one predicted much of the abomination of the Bushwarmongerers oil war. This one is dated 07:28 am April 11, 2003. It was posted on the defunct PEOPLESFORUM.COM by Dr.Joe B.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Title: A commonly held Cliched Nonsequitur

 

I cannot say how many times that I have heard some half-pint analyst make the comment: Hussein is a threat because he has even used chemical weapons on his own people. It is a cliched bromide pavlovian response by way too many pundits whose common-sense has betrayed them. It is a salve on the conscience of Americans for sacrificing lives needlessly for gaining control of an estimated 100 billion barrels of oil under Kirkuk alone. It justifies our massive assault on a weakling nation sitting on unimaginable wealth. We are the good guys once again. Are we not giving the Iraqi people a better life? Have we not bashed their nation's major city, Baghdad? Have we not made them look like cowardly morons who do not have the will to take care of their own business? As Clint Eastwood might say in one of his low budget class B movies...killing innocent people is a funny way to improve their lives.

 

I guarantee to all that our benevolence will not be rewarded with friendships as time goes by. Sure, initially we will be thanked....especially thanks will come from US citizens of Iraqi descent. Many of them experienced first-hand cruelty at the hands of Hussein and his mob. Later on, they will start by first nibbling at the hand that thought it was giving them them good news. Pretty soon the nibbles will lapse into real bites. Finally, they will all start gnawing at the hand that fixed their lives. It is a normal cycle. See how thankful France was for the blood that we shed to free them from the Nazis? On a smaller scale the same thing happens with all charitable acts. Try helping the down-trodden and see if what I say is not true. The cliche that goes "you always bite the hand that feeds you" did not become a cliche for no reason. But, I go adrift.

 

The non-sequitur that justifes our molestation of Iraq goes:

 

PREMISE: Hussein is a fiend (he even chemically murdered 60K of his OWN people in Halapcha)

CONCLUSION: Therefore, we are justified as viewing him as potentially doing the same to us

 

This piece of logic is obviously a non-sequitur of grand proportions. Why?

 

For starters, the Kurds are NOT his own people. They are trespassers within the boundaries of Iraq and Turkey. They have been at odds with the Hussein Iraq for years. They also have been at odds with the Turks. And you must know that it is because of oil wealth. The Kurds hate Iraqis. They do not acknowledge that they are Iraqi citizens. Hussein did not chemically murder his own people. He committed an atrocity on Kurdish people who hate him and have attempted to claim Iraq territory. This does not mean that Hussein has not committed horrible acts on his own people, however. The torture chambers attest to that fact.

 

Does anyone in his right mind really believe that a nation of 20 million people with a ragamuffin military is a real threat to attacking the USA while skipping over the nations surrounding Iraq with thousand times more weapons of mass destruction? You would have to be a moron to believe that even possible. So, the non-sequitur is simply a bromide to justify our collective conscience for beating the crap out of a weakling nation with much rich oil reserve.

 

No doubt Iraq will benefit in the long run our our sacrifice. We could have taken Hussein out like we took Norriega out of Panama, if we had chosen. No doubt the oil fields would have been detonated with that strategy even if it saved countless innocent lives, not to mention the many destroyed bridges, buildings, and other infrastructure that we will have to rebuild with our tax dollars in the future. But we will obtain rights to mine the oil reserves that Exxon Mobil is chomping at the bit to control.

 

END OF QUOTE

 

Estimates are close to a million deaths have occurred as a result of our democritization of a nation that never asked for it. Iraq is in shambles. Their infrastructure that once worked fine for its 20 million people is still operating at less than half of its former efficiency by some estimates. Iraqis live in fear...much more than they did under Hussein. We have lost over 4200 of our finest and bravest soldiers based on lies. Another 20,000 or more have been maimed. Families and friends have suffered with the knowledge that soldiers close to them have paid a heavy price. Many of our returning soldiers are suffering with mental damage known as PTS. The cost of this needless war based will approach 1 trillion tax payers dollars soon.

 

Meanwhile the Grand Old Pig nominee thinks we can win a war in Iraq. He is too stupid to even explain what he means by winning. I think we have already lost enough. There is no winning anywhere in the debacle of the Bushmassmurderingliars.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Time Has Come Said The Walrus...To Write of Conservatism Versus Liberalism..

 

Even yours truly gets tired of bashing the bushbunch. Though they certainly have a bashing coming. So, I switch gears for the moment.

 

This next message is another repeat of one that I wrote some time ago for the defunct Peoplesforum.com. In that forum I wrote on many topics most of which had something or other to do with liberalism versus conservatism. I wrote on religion, education, investing (gambling), humor and a host of other topics some of which I hope to rewrite here on this blog as the occasion permits...if it doesn't belly-up like the last two forums that I invaded with truth. I especially love to explain my concept of God. So, I promise to go into that issue at some point in the future when I feel an urge for spirituality.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to put on my pedantic professorial hat and explain things that seem to go unnoticed by the average political blogger. Since I have already explained my brain out in other forums, I normally do not have to go very far to find something that needs repeating. I just go to my stack of 2400 essay/blogs that I have somewhat crackedpottedly wrote for reasons that even I the perpetrator of this massive folly don't fully understand. I always find something worth repeating when I do that. You see? I am a compulsive truthaholic. There does not appear to be any cure for this unique disorder. Maybe, that is the real function of the internet blogosphere to be an outlet for such raging truthaholic minds. The problem is that everyone thinks they have the truth. Few do. I actually do....most of the time.

 

Here is a bit of enlightment on the position of conservatism versus liberalism relative to our Constitution. The blog was written on Apr 19, 2007 at 12:26p.m. I was tired but still bent on writing up a truth that erupted in my over-active mind at that late hour.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Title-What is the Nature of The Constitution Relative to Liberalism Vs Conservatism?

 

It occurred to the author of this topic that he has tacitly assumed everyone understands the role of the Constitution as it relates to conservatism and liberalism. Simply put, the Constitution should be viewed like sunk costs are viewed in doing a cost analysis. Sunk costs are like initial unretrievable committed costs that are necessary to get a project going. In essence, the founding fathers along with those who followed them hammered together a document of established policies, principles, and government controlled stances... I.e. The provisions in the Constitution for regulating are like sunk LIBERAL policies and regulations that tend to stay constant. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, voting rights, and a whole lot more are to be viewed as government controlled items that give structure to the way we are to be governed. They do not change readily. They are sunk positions. Nevertheless, change is still possible to Constitutional amendments as seen in the Prohibition amendment that was subsequently repealed.

 

Normally, when we consider any issue that relates to governing we consider the issue from both a conservative (government hands off) and a liberal (government hands-on) point of view. It is conservative for the government to let the private sector determine the way an issue is handled. It is liberal for the government to use its power to regulate, control, police, and otherwise shape the way the issue is handled. Folks who consider themselves true conservatives prefer as little meddling as possible by government believing that the free market control is sufficient to handle the situation. The liberal position is to control and regulate how the public does business using government power.

 

Because the Constitution is comprised of sunk LIBERAL STANCES, it is conservative not to disrupt them. I.e. It is Laissez Faire (Leave to do in French) not to tamper with the existing state of government as determined by the Constitution. In essence, the Constitution is our accepted, sunk LIBERAL status quo. Not changing the way we operate based on the Constitution is definitely conservative in spirit. Liberal reforms rarely tamper with the existing Constitution. Both liberal-spirited folks and conservative-spirited folks agree on this point.

 

Hopefully, this clarifies thinking on the position of the Constitution relative to our way of governing.

 

END OF QUOTE

 

Perhaps, I should explain to the casual viewer that I was a cost analysis for one of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle Programs in my last 2 years of working for the Dept of Defense. I did a number of cost analyses during that period. It would not be possible to do a meaningful cost analysis without considering sunk costs in the analysis. Sunk costs are the costs that are needed to get the ball rolling on a project. They are normally one-time and irretrievable. They are costs like building a prototype tank or APC. The Constitution behaves similarly. The Constitution includes sunk agreed-upon LIBERAL government control on major issues most of which were decided by our founding fathers. Once such issues have been decided and placed in the Constitution they became sunk LIBERAL positions. It is sacrilegious to violate these positions according to our way of government. They can be changed but only by a massive LIBERAL effort such as what happened in repealing the Prohibition Amendment. It is very conservative to leave be what our founding fathers sunk into our Constitution.

 

Is this clear enough? Does this give anyone a better handle on liberalism versus conservatism relative to political positions? I hope so....because it is an essential truth about our way of governing in the USA.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Back On The Bashing Trail With This Message...

 

I started reading the biography of J. Craig Venter last week after finishing Obama's biography Dreams from My Father. I need a continuous flow of ammunition to fight the battle for truth. I figured that Venter has to be an orifice of truth. So, I did not hesitate to buy a copy of his biography. After all, he is the one who computed the human genome. Who knows the nature of mankind better?

 

Venter is more than just an ordinary scientist. He is an American hero. He some how survived the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes" and made an historical mark on the world with his genetic research. Venter was also a very human human being who suffered the trials of going to war. While reading his biography entitled, A Life Decoded, I came across a passage that says so much about his feelings on war that I simply have to share it with you. It also gives you a hint of what he thinks about blowhard Republicans who talk the war game and run the other way like our inimitable Bushcoward and many of his friends like Countsuckourblood Chaney. The quote begins at the last paragraph of page 46. Venter had just returned from 2 years and 8 months of hell in Vietnam where he witnessed many deaths, maimings, and psychologically damaged young soldiers. He was Corpsman. They are the guys who take care of the sufferings of war. They had the highest mortality rate of any soldiers in Vietnam because the Cong gave awards for anyone killing a medic.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Fresh out of the Universtity of Death, I felt something like Benjamin Braddock at the welcome home party of his southern Californian suburbanite parents in The Graduate. At dinner I came close to losing it when a group of Republican fat cats who were sitting around, drinking and smoking cigars went on about how great it must have been to kill Communists and gooks. The "gookification" of the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese made it easier for our men to kill men, women, and children, or to undertake absurd acts such as throwing dead buffaloes into wells to poison the local's water. I wanted to scream about the endless civilian casualties, to tell them about the thousands of young men who were maimed or scarred or killed to achieve nothing--nothing other than proving to our enemies that we were more than willing to sacrifice our youth. I left the dinner claiming I had jet lag and went home.

END OF QUOTE:

 

Do you see what a real human being feels about the nature of war based on real experience? Only a horses rectum Grand Old Pig like the Bushmurderers could treat death and dying so cavalierly to lie our nation into another unnecessary war like Vietnam. Venter proves that he is worthy of his Mensa IQ with this last quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually below is a much more accurate synopsis of the mind and the negative aspect of political thinking in relation to those suffering from instituted mind control. Not only accurate but it is not a blog but rather scientific fact research by a renowed specialist.

 

Liberal-Progressive Mind Control

By Thomas E. Brewton

Socialism, of which liberal-progressivism is the American sect, is more than control of the economy. Most importantly it is mind-control through the public education system.

 

The Washington Times reports the latest liberal-progressive-socialist curtailment of personal freedom.

“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children in their own home,” said the Feb. 28 ruling by the California Appellate Court for the second district.

 

When they wish to overrule long-standing political liberties, liberals look to precedents of so-called international law and other nations’ customs. The socialist European Union, and Germany specifically , provide ammunition for abrogating educational liberties.

 

Why the animus of liberal courts and teachers’ unions against home schooling?

 

The obvious answer is that home schooling does a better job, revealing the poor quality of public education. Less obvious is the desire of home-schooling parents to teach Judeo-Christian moral principles, which directly conflicts with the public school aim of teaching the secular religion of liberal-progressive-socialism. Propagating that mind-set necessitates identifying as ignorance all ideas of fixed and timeless moral principles.

 

Such was the work primarily of John Dewey, the leading liberal-progressive theoretician of the early 1900s. He taught Columbia University students that Darwinian evolution had proved that everything, including morality, was continually evolving. In such a world there can be no timeless principles of morality. Rules for social behavior are simply whatever intellectuals think they ought to be in matters of sexual orientation, sexual promiscuity, and every sort of sensual gratification.

 

Under the impact of such schooling, the traditional family unit is no longer the bedrock of society. The norm tends toward single-parent units. Home-schooling by parents in traditional families is, to that style of moral relativism, a direct affront.

 

There is now abundant evidence, in all parts of the nation, that public-education students are inculcated with anti-Americanism and a moral relativism that will not even condemn the Nazi Holocaust. Liberal-progressivism teaches students that there are no real differences among nations, races, and cultures, even sexes. We are all homogeneous and ready for a single world government that will end wars and guarantee harmony and economic plenty, equally for all. In such a world, callow students must be conditioned to see every atrocity from the other guy’s view point and to avoid all judgments of right or wrong.

 

Liberal-progressives, it will be remembered, sympathized with Al Queda and blamed 9/11 on the capitalist greed of the United States.

 

The recent death of William F. Buckley, Jr. reminds us that, by the late 1940s, this disintegration of historical education was well established. Ivy League universities such as Yale had long since abandoned their founding mission of educating Puritan ministers. They had, as Buckley documented in “God and Man at Yale,” become overwhelmingly slanted toward liberal-progressivism.

 

Liberal-progressive-socialism is a world paradigm in which greedy capitalists become rich by grinding workers down to bare-subsistence levels of income, while forcing the workers to buy whatever products they produce, at whatever prices they elect to charge. Hence the endless harping in the New York Times about income inequality.

 

In that paradigm, social justice demands that the undeservedly rich capitalists be expropriated, either by seizing their property and placing it under collective ownership, or by imposing a multitude of regulations that convey the rights of ownership to the political state. This is known as socialization.

 

The most important element of liberal-progressive-socialism, however, is control of the educational system. Henri de Saint-Simon, who systematically conceptualized socialism in the first decades of the 19th century, wrote that the educational system must be controlled by the highest level of the political state’s intellectual councils, so that nothing other than the doctrine of socialism may be taught.

Wow! You have found an 'opinion factory'. Now go forth and find substantiation in good old fashion statistical studies for all of these unsubstantiated opinions. But first give a concise definition of what you mean by progressive-socialism. That will get you started at thinking accurately.

 

Definitions should define. That means give 'definite' guidelines as to what is defined. No nebulous foggy thinking is allowed in making definitions that define boundaries of concepts with conciseness and accuracy-of-intent of the definition. Check advanced mathematics textbooks to see how mathematicians take great care in precision of their definitions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there are core beliefs that separate liberals from conservatives (a few listed below). However, I also think it's incorrect to pigeonhole people as either liberal or conservative. I find myself on different sides, depending on the issue.

 

Success:

- Liberal: You benefitted from fortunate circumstances. You were born to a good environment, had good genes, people supported you, you were lucky, you had opportunities.

- Conservative: You worked hard, showed initiative, made the most of your opportunities, developed your talent, applied your strengths. A person can transcend their circumstances.

 

Worldview:

- Liberal: Respect the equivalent moral standing of all peoples and ideologies.

- Conservative: Look out for #1 (us), and our friends.

 

Economics:

- Liberal: 'Free' enterprise is like the core of a nuclear reactor. You've got to have it to keep the lights on, but it's extremely dangerous and must be highly regulated to ensure safety.

- Conservative: Free enterprise is the engine of economic growth. The more free the economy, the faster it grows, the more jobs/money/wealth we will all have to enjoy.

 

Religion:

- Liberal: Religion is illogical and dangerous. It should be kept out of any decision making process. People in decision making positions should at least put on the public cloak of secularism.

- Conservative: Religion is the source of our morals and values. Without it we're like rudderless ships in a sea of relativism. Leaders who properly apply religious (ie Christian) values are good for society.

 

Responsibility:

- Liberal: Everyone makes mistakes. Forgive, rehabilitate, counsel, and help the person do better. Pick them up, dust them off, give them a good meal and a bed to sleep in and they'll make you proud.

- Conservative: People who make mistakes should be allowed to feel the pain. Through suffering, they will learn what not to do. Others will also see their pain and learn vicariously.

 

Long, long ago, in a Galaxy far, far away , this would explain the Jedi, and the Sith. Conservatives being the Sith, and Liberals being the Jedi. The Jedi (Liberals)are selfless and think of others, while the Sith (Conservatives) think only in terms of self and of power at any cost.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need a guide to liberalism in America read Marx and Engels also Mein Kampf because you can`t say Nazi without saying socialism!

Correction: Corporate socialism is a more accurate defintition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...