Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Jan. 4, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Now that President Barack Obama has won re-election by a majority of voters, it’s time for the hate directed toward him to stop. We don’t hear much from the birthers about him allegedly not being born in the U.S. any longer. Nor do we hear much about the president being a traitor, a communist, a Muslim or an Arab (none of which is true). Rush Limbaugh and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell apparently both continue to hope that the president fails, as they have from the start of his first election win. The primary goal of McConnell was to make ...
I agree with you, Sam, but don't expect the hate to stop anytime soon. The "birthers" are still out there. They never went away. It's almost like an illness. As long as we have Fox News fanning the flames, we can expect all of this nonsense to continue. They will always find some basis to attack him.
Sam and Marty and others,
I know you hate the fact that opposing side opposes President Obama and what he wants to do, because you like him and agree with what he wants to do. I get that.
What I think you miss is what has happened to both sides. For each party, everything is about how to 'own' the executive and the legislative branches of government, and by extension, the judicial branch. McConnell 'stupidly' and over and over again, put into words, and made public, the strategy each side uses against the other.
This whole idea that you go to war against the other side, refuse to compromise and that when you win, you simply run over the opposition at every opportunity, is destroying and will destroy this country.
Conservatives and Republicans railed against the attacks on former President Bush and said nothing as he and the Republicans did very little compromising with the other side. Now it is the Progressives and the Democrats doing exactly the same. Until both sides lay down some of their weapons and start talking and really compromising for the good of the country, we cannot start to move in a positive direction.
We have to force the needed compromise and we cannot do it unless we are willing to criticize our own side and not just the other side.
Michael
It's politics. It's always been that way and always will. President Harry S. Truman said it best when he said: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell made that comment about Obama one month before and one day after the mid term elections of 2010. He said, and I'll paraphrase, when he was addressing the GOP at the Heritage Foundation: My primary objectice OVER THE NEXT TWO years is to make Obama a one term president. Well, what do you expect the minority leader of the Senate to say? Recall too it was Hillary Clinton who was the FIRST to raise the issue of Obama's place of birth on the campaign trail to the democratic presidential nomination. Not the Republicans. Politics, plain and simple. All presidents go through it and they always will.
CarmineD
The thing that bugs me the most is that when you DISAGREE with Obama or his ilk you are branded a racist, a hater, a member of the Tea Party or that somehow you are intellectually devoid of thought.
This is how the liberals view the conservatives. Sadly though, change the name from Obama to Bush and the exact same vitriol applies.
We as citizens of this great experiment need to focus less on the Cult of Personality and more on what policies that affect our lives and livelihoods. Until this happens its all going to be an eye for an eye.
MotorSports, thanks for proving my point
"The GOP is the party of angry, old, unhappy White men. " @ Motorsports
"MotorSports, thanks for proving my point." @ Heretic
Tim Scott of South Carolina, an African American AND REPUBLICAN, was selected as the first in the Senate since 1897. And was appointed by Governor Nikki Haley, the second Indian-American AND REPUBLICAN after Bobby Jindal, ALSO REPUBLICAN, the first Indian American Governor. BTW, check out who is the Chair of the GOP party: A WOMAN! Would you like me to continue? Or can we get passed the nonsense of race, age, gender and party affiliation AND TALK POLITICS AND PRESIDENTS?
CarmineD
President Obama could easily clear up his past history and mysteries by releasing his college transcripts and travel records. What would it take; 5 minutes for Mr. Obama to authorize releasing his records? As much as some folks assume to know the truth or blindly follow our leaders without question, is our President a good guy or someone not who he portends to be?
Americans have a right to know the truth and have leadership that is transparent with no conflicts of interest, and capable of passing legislation in the light of the day".
Sam is one of our nice posters here on LVS. He makes many good points that I agree with but he is a democratic supporter and will occasion himself to mild partisan rhetoric. Many democratic supporters resort to using Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals. Here is a list of the rules: I've concluded Sam is using rules #6, #8, #11 and #13.
Rules for Radicals:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
This letter proves even mild-mannered Sam is susceptible to a less than balanced view on the subject of partisan rhetoric. Why didn't Sam use some examples of democratic rhetoric of hate directed at conservatives? Recently, a democratic LVS poster started calling on minorities and women to arm themselves and "shoot em more often"(gun owners). The same poster a day later called for young Hispanics and young Black men to shoot and kill old white men. Sam, why are you not calling out those who spew vitriolic hate in your own party?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
Carmine,
We all know that Sen.Mitch McConnell Rep.KY., said during the midterm elections that it was his objective to make sure Pres.Obama was a one term Pres.He has said this repeatedly in public.During the last two years of Pres.Obama's time in office,Mr.McConnell scuttled a energy bill,several jobs bills.He used his extensive knowledge to deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.
Rush Limbaugh said on Jan.16,2009 4 days before the Inauguration of Pres.Obama. on Jan. 20,2009 that "I hope he fails". He has repeatedly said this on numerious occasions.If you don't think this is hate think again.
The torture never stops edition 2013.01.04:
Casler: the giggling murderer started two wars without an imminent threat. Killing at least 30,000 Iraqi's (more likely 200, 000+), employed hundreds of thousands of contractors and mercenaries to further expand the military. These are grievous sins.
Obama has been a dope a few times, but no mass murderer. The comparison is invalid.
Sam, that's politics....do you really think the Democrats wanted Bush to succeed? Surely you jest!!?? You really can't be that naive.....can you??
Mr. Pizzo,
Political rhetoric and feigned hatred happens from and to each party. Consider:
1. Alfred A. Knopf, for example, infamously published Nicholson Baker's Checkpoint, a pathetic riff on shooting Bush. Gabriel Range's unhinged 2006 "docudrama," The Death of a President, focused on an imagined assassination of President Bush (imagine the outcry should any filmmaker today update that topos).
2. A sick Charlie Brooker op-ed in the Guardian called for another John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald to kill Bush.
3. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic more or less permanently ruined his reputation by writing an adolescent rant on "the case for Bush hatred," one that began creepily with "I hate President George W. Bush."
4. Obama "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2.".....calling Republicans enemies???
5. Referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona's anti-illegal immigration measure, Mr. Obama said, "Those aren't the kinds of folks who represent our core American values."
6. As a presidential candidate in 2008 Obama criticized then-President George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, saying it was "unpatriotic" and also "irresponsible" to saddle future generations with such a large national debt. What has Obama done since? He's surpassed Bush's $4 trillion dollar debt in 4 years what Bush did in 8.
Surely, Mr. Pizzo doesn't think hateful rhetoric comes from only one party?
Freeman,
"Sam is one of our nice posters here on the LVS.He makes many good points that I agree with but he is a Democratic supporter and will on occasion himself to mild partisan rhetoric".
Nothing is further from the truth. I am a registered Republican and will remain that way.This is my first time to vote for a Democrat as Pres., in my 44 years as a Republican.I voted for Pres. Obama and also voted for some Republicans as well as Democrats.
I vote and support the person I feel best qualified to lead our country.Whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat.Times have changed and so have I.
Sam and the rules for radicals:
A fair reading of the rules that Freeman uses from the rotating copy and paste folder that Freeman uses lazily show Freeman to exhibit most of the descriptors.
The same reading shows Sam to be one of the good guy's.
Garner:
Some of the examples you provide are rude, but overall it is a weak argument you have provided. The contents you have provided you have used on multiple threads by you too, just like Freeman.
Got any newer insights?
Sam is a good guy Jeff. Now, after calling women and minorities to arm themselves, why Jeff are you calling for hate and violence? You stated directly the other day that:
"the current crop of gun owners will be shot and killed more often once the people I have called to arms are armed"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
Jeff, to Sam's point in his letter, hateful rhetoric has no place in debates. Jeff, you cross the line and Sam ignores the hateful rhetoric from democratic backers like you. It's hypocrisy.
Jeff,
Thanks for the support,sometimes we all need it.No one is all correct on what he or she says for a comment. After all, it's just one person's opinion.
Jeff, I am sorry you are so clouded in your liberal thinking that you think believe Bush is a mass murderer. I guess besides advocating young black men to arm themselves you have become an advocate for Code Pink. Do you feel conflicted??
"I am sorry to ruin your Black Panther party" Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump
Freeman:
Your argument lacks credibility because it is not true.
In your critique of my stance on gun control you are using Alinskey's rules numbers 4,5,6,8,10, 11, and 13.
Pretty funny stance you have taken.
Liars love America because Americans are generally too trusting and good natured to notice. That's why immature journalists have so many different versions of everything, particularly the truth. The ex-Senator from Kenya has spent his entire life masquerading as a foreigner, or has it only been since 2006 and you're shocked Sam?... Up next, US gun confiscation, Fast and Furious, and Benghazi operations are running low on supplies.
America's response to reality. Yes, that's us, the German guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh...
I can't take serious comments like
" Jeff, I am sorry you are so clouded in your liberal thinking that you think believe Bush is a mass murderer."
From someone who calls themselves a heretic, who acts as a tea party zombie.
Sorry.
Re: Paul Rupps
"President Obama could easily clear up his past history and mysteries by releasing his college transcripts and travel records."
We all know that those who question Obama's validity would then claim that the records are fake or they'd demand his entire family's documents and records be examined. It's a rabbit hole designed to distract. At this point, no reasonable person cares anymore about the President's college and travel records than they do about Rush Limbaugh's illegal drug use and addiction records.
Jeff, Tea Party Zombie...... Wow. You really know how to insult somebody.
For all of my liberal friends..... This is why siding with you on ANY issue is so hard. As soon as we disagree on anything or disagree with the president you go into high speed wobbles and start throwing out invectives and derisive versions of Tea party.
Why...why are you so afraid of dissent?? Sadly this says more about you than about me.
I will tell you one funny thing though.... Whenever I have a comment removed it is generally because I am answering a comment aimed at me for being a member of the Tea Party...... I am not and never have been.... But the harder you push, the better they look.
Carmine,
President Harry S. Truman said it best when he said."If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen".That was one of his best quotes ever.
He also was quoted as saying."If you want a friend in Washington get a dog".That ranks up there as another one of his better quotes.
"Now that President Barack Obama has won re-election by a majority of voters, it's time for the hate directed toward him to stop."
Pizzo -- your letter shows how profoundly ignorant you are of this republic.
"The Fuhrer is always right." -- Joachim von Ribbentrop, the 1939 Konigsberg address
Harry S. Truman, unlike George W. Bush also knew how to end a war.
Oops. I'm sorry. That was vitriolic of me.
Apparently Sam Pizzo was missing in action for Geroge W.s 8 years in office. What goes on today is just a continuation of the animosity shown by Dumbocrats towards Bush (41 & 43), Reagan, Ford & Nixon. They weren't to happy with Ike, either. And, Sam may be a "registered" Republicrat, but he's no Conservative. No true Conservative could ever cast a vote for the likes of the guy with the Cheshire Cat grin, his empty rhetoric and his determination to transform the USA into a Third World country such as, say, Kenya.
Sam: It's politics. look at Majority Leader Reid, or as I prefer to call him: Dirty Harry.
Since Reid became Leader in 2007, he's locked out the republicans in 2 of the 3 ways that they can influence bills. The 3 ways are by offering amendments in committee, by offering amendments on the Senate floor, and by a filibuster. Reid has shut out the republicans by one: Abusing Senate Rule 14; and two: By a procedure called "filling the tree." Senate Rule 14 allows the the leader to by-pass committees and write bills behind closed doors without any minority party input. He used this rule 70 times. "Filling the tree" allows the leader to use all the available slots for amendments on the Senate floor so the minority party can't offer one. Reid's done this 69 times.
Finally, the the filibuster rule. Reid wants, and the LV Sun supports, allowing 51 votes rather than 60 for cloture. This puts all the votes to start and end Senate debate, and allow a vote, in the democrats' hands. Then, the republicans can't influence any bill and/or law in the Senate. This violates all the parliamentary procedures in place to protect the minority party's voice and votes. It's a power grab. it's the tyranny of the majority.
CarmineD
In my mind, I am spewing vitriol at you Jerry.
Jerry Fink,
"Apparently Sam Pizzo was missing in action for George W's 8 years in office.What goes on today is just a continuation of the animosity shown by Dumbocrats towards Bush(41&43),Reagan,Ford & Nixon".
In case you missed it I voted for Nixon,Reagan, Bush 41,and Bush 43,along with voting for Sen.John McCain in is bid for the presidency in 2008.Bush 43 in his performance as president, pushed me to vote for Pres.Obama in 2012.I don't hate anyone,it's not my style.Some people I just don't like.
You wrote: 'the giggling murderer started two wars without an imminent threat. Killing at least 30,000 Iraqi's (more likely 200, 000+), employed hundreds of thousands of contractors and mercenaries to further expand the military. These are grievous sins.'
Surely, you don't believe all that.
3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11 by terrorists supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Are you claiming that the retaliation was unjustified? Do you claim Bush did this solely to expand the military?
I think the Iraq war was a mistake but I don't believe that Bush started it for devious reasons anymore than I believe President Obama is all evil, all the time.
We can't have sane policy debates when one side claims one President is willing to start wars with zero legitimate justification and the other side claims another President is a closet Communist and is intent on destroying America.
Those two views call for a 'bridge too far'. We can never come together when people exaggerate like that. I would hope you and people on the other side would back off a bit so don't eliminate any chance for compromise.
Michael
"He also was quoted as saying."If you want a friend in Washington get a dog".That ranks up there as another one of his better quotes." @ Samspeaks
I trust Speaker John Boehner can attest to the accuracy of Harry's truth.
CarmineD
Sam,
I can totally understand you voting for President Obama after former President Bush's performance. Unlike many, I am not angry at Bush for attacking Afghanistan. I am not even mad about Iraq, since I do believe Bush was acting on flawed intelligence and did not know it. Both war campaigns were handled poorly and I do hold him accountable for that. But my biggest complaint about Bush is that he put the cost of the wars, the establishment of Homeland Security and all that went with it, and the tax cuts, on a government credit card, and ask NOTHING of any Americans, except those that served in the military.
This country can easily survive two mismanaged wars and even one that was a mistake, but to place us at economic risk of this magnitude, when it wasn't necessary was a serious breach of his responsibility as President.
Unfortunately, I also feel that President Obama is breaching his responsibility in the economic area, as is Congress.
Michael
Michael asks:
"Are you claiming that the retaliation was unjustified?"
I say:
The retaliation against Iraq?
Please tell me what Iraq had to do with the bombings on 911.
Jeff,
Please don't be deliberately obtuse. The question was about Afghanistan. You are the one that said '2 wars', not me.
I'll answer your question. As it turns out, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but that wasn't nearly as clear in 2003 as it was several years and much more information later.
Look, with GW Bush's dad's history in Iraq and the assassination attempt on his dad, I would be open to the idea that GW Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his dad or for oil... except for one thing.
I have great respect for a certain man's integrity even though I have almost zero respect for the integrity of most people working in Washington DC. That man isn't Bush, as you might expect. It is instead Colin Powell. I do not believe that Colin Powell would have done what he did if he did not believe Saddam had WMD's and would give them to terrorists. I think both he and Bush believed that.
I suspect you disagree and I doubt if we will ever know the complete truth on that.
Michael
Michael:
There is an entire generation of Iraqi's with dead parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, cousins, etc, that will be forever hateful -- with justification -- to the USA for cratering their hearts, minds and babies in the name of retaliation while you sit around sipping a latte' excusing the war crimes committed in your name and my name.
"No weapons under there", joked the giggling murderer.
Michael,
I sometimes agree with your comments, but you fail to realize the motivating force and focus of this current GOP is HATE! That is why the party has shrunken to mostly old white men who have little regard for others rights. The party that was once the front runner on social and racial equality has become it's own worst enemy. Ronald Reagan would be thouroughly embarrassed that this party uses his name in defense of their actions.
Jeff,
I don't drink coffee or latte. There are still many Iraqi's who are glad to be rid of Saddam. They paid a terrible price for his demise, but he also killed hundreds of thousands and the only way the Iraqi's were ever going to rid themselves of him was to have someone overthrow him and kill him.
I wish we had stayed out of Iraq, and it is partly because of all the carnage that ensued, both to Iraqis's and Americans. The main reason I wish we stayed out is exactly what you stated in your response. Whenever we sacrifice our young people and spend the money necessary to expel a dictator and murderer, the people the dictator was terrorizing always seem to hate us.
I'll tell you what... I do feel sorry for the innocent Iraqi's that were killed and their loved ones left behind, but I feel just as sorry for all the Americans killed or maimed and all their loved ones left behind.
If we are going to be vilified when people are killed during the removal of a dictator, I am all for just leaving the dictator there to kill his own countrymen and just do nothing.
Michael
Vernos,
I agree with you sometimes as well, but not on this monolithic view of the Republican party as a party of haters.
The Republicans, as a whole, do need to move left on social issues if they wish to remain viable. The country has moved and they need to move. They also need to admit that the debt we have is money already spent and that precludes their penchant for providing lower tax rates. Taxes need to go up, not down and we can't grow ourselves out of the financial mess. I fully support their call for an income tax re-write and reductions in government spending.
Both parties hew way too much to their fringes. That's why each time they gain power, they overreach and try to move the country too far to the right or left, and end up blowing themselves right out of power. It will happen again.... just wait.
Part of the problem in the Republican party is that some of the most fiscally conservative members and also socially conservative, which is a bad combination.
Michael
In reply to Sam Pizzo; you're a good man Sam, and I always respect your logical and common sense approach to touchy or hot type issues. However, all the decency on your part will not stop all the vitriol in our society. The hate between people will only get worse.
HATE IN THE HOSPITAL!
It was just the day after Christmas when I had virtually stopped breathing and was taken to the hospital. I had a pretty severe case of pneumonia.
After passing this medical danger zone, I was transferred to a recovery and rehabilitation center under my medical plan. Little did I know that I would have to face a man in sharing a recovery room who just seemed to hate others of whom was not his same ethnicity? Being polite to him just seemed to fuel his hatred. As an example, I'd walk towards the restroom, and he would purposely dump water on the floor where I was walking, hoping, apparently, that I would slip and fall. The issues of harassment and bullying just went on and on. He was very much blatant in his hateful actions. Finally, I had no other choice but to call him on his actions directed towards me. Without going into any details of what took place behind closed doors in the middle of the night, a mutual compromise for existence in this recovery room was reached between the two of us.
After being discharged from this medical facility the other day, I took a quick glance back and couldn't believe what had taken place in this hospital setting. Hate flourishes Sam, everywhere. Let nothing surprise you, Sam. And really, be ready for worst case scenarios when having to deal with people. Sam, I guess we shoulod welcome ourselves to the new Armerica!
Re: dukeofdeath
"We all know that those who question Obama's validity would then claim that the records...."
Could you be so kind as to reveal the winning lottery numbers for U.S. - Mega Millions lottery for 1/5/2013 as you represent that you know answers in advance....?
Obama haters failed in their goal to make him a one-term president. Not only that but the GOP world got turned upside down when their Election Day predictions met up with the reality that exists outside the conservative media entertainment bubble.
But hate never sleeps so the nutbars will soon take aim at the next Democrat in line for a potential presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton. That's when they'll prove they're not racist by hating a white woman just as much as a black man.
I agree with you Jeff. You are referring to the annual White House Correspondent's Dinner, when George Bush made a joke about the fact that we found absolutely ZERO WMD's in Iraq after we invaded. He strutted about the stage, smiling, looking under tables and said "Nope, no WMD'S under there", and the disgusting White House Press Corps howled with laughter. On second thought, perhaps it was "nervous" laughter.
Yeah, very funny, considering that WMD'S was the the entire rationale given for us invading Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam, at least not "officially". Of course, they lied about that too. It really was about overthrowing Saddam, and establishing a sphere of influence in Iraq. That didn't work out too well, did it ?
Remember when Cheney told us the Iraqi's would greet us as "liberators" and the war would be over in a few months ? I do. As soon as Saddam was overthrown, we had George Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in his best John Wayne imitation, giving us a victory speech. Of course, that was before we lost 4000 soldiers and who knows how many contractors in Iraq. But, now we have the right wing going after Obama for 4 deaths in Benghazi. The right wing never had any problem with the incompetence of the Bush administration which led to the deaths of thousand of American soldiers, contractors and innocent Iraqis.
When it all started to go bad, and they couldn't even find a "trace" of WMD'S, Bush/Cheney tried to blame the Iraq invasion on the CIA, saying they based it on "flawed" intelligence. How about "non-existent" intelligence ? They had nothing. They twisted themselves like pretzels in order to find a justification to invade. Or, as British Intelligence said in the now infamous "Downing Street Memo" (google it), the U.S. had already made the decision to invade, and were only searching for a rationale to justify it. They only delayed the invasion until they could sell it to the American people. That, my friends, is the definition of a war criminals. The Bush/Cheney administration was a disaster for our country, and I am thankful that we don't have to deal with them anymore.
I don't consider this being "partisan". This is looking at the world with eyes wide open.
See the YouTube video linked below. From the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration and after, Democrats and Republicans agreed on one thing: that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and would use them. Madeleine Albright, President Clinton, Sandy Burger, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Evan Bayh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPo...
Re Freeman,
Republicans and their supporters have selective memories when it suites them, just as the Democrats and their supporters do. In this case, it is convenient for the Democrats and their supporters to forget that the view that of almost everyone (Democrats and Republicans and even foreign heads of state and their intelligence agencies) had at that time was that Saddam had WMD's and would provide them to terrorists.
There are many reasons to criticize President Bush and his performance and it always amuses me a bit that these people choose to criticize former President Bush over a decision that almost everyone agreed on at the time.
Go figure...
Michael
Michael,
"Sam,I can totally understand you voting for Pres.Obama after former Pres.Bush's performance".
I don't hate Pres Bush.I will give him the benifit of acting out on the intelligence he was provided for the invasion of Iraq.Even though I was against the invasion. Where I do find fault with him is not listening to our Generals.It was Army Gen.Eric Shinseki who told members of Congress that we needed 300,000 troops to stablize Irag,Bush went in with 140,000 troops instead.I might add that Gen.Shinseki was forced out for his assessment of the war.Pres.Bush also had no clue when he said that major combat was over in Iraq on May 3,2003 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.Our involvement did not end until 2011, when all U.S.Troops left Iraq. 4,500 dead and 40,000 wounded Americans,and for what.
Bush went to was in Iraq for oil and because of daddy issues. He was so pathetic that we didn't get the oil and expanded Iran's influence in Iraq. So much for Republican leadership in foreign affairs!
Bradley,
"In reply to Sam Pizzo,you're a good man Sam,and I always respect your logical and commen sense approach to touchy or hot type issues.However all the decency on your part will not stop all the vitorial in our society.The hate will only get worse".
Bradley you are 100% correct when you say the hate will never stop.We as Americans need to look at the nasty names we call our Presidents and Congressmen and women.It was never like this when I was growing up,which was a long time ago.The political adds that were run by both sides with half truths in the election in 2012, were just plain wrong.
I like you expect it to get worse before it gets better (hate).
That was not a good experience for you at the hospital especially since you were sick.I hope all is well in your life at this time,and continues to be.
Sam,
There is little question that the war could have been handled better. I think more troops would have been a good idea but I also think disbanding the Iraqi Army was a poor decision.
At least you will allow that Bush might have made the decision to attack based on flawed intelligence rather than 'for oil', 'to avenge his dad', 'to make his oil buddies wealthy' or 'because he is a war monger'.
To be frank, it is difficult for me to have respect for people on the right that say Obama is a closet Communist and wants to destroy the country and those on the left that spout what i believe to be the baloney that I mentioned above.
We have a very ill informed public and one that uses backward logic, where they take a position based on little information and then believe anything that supports their position and completely dismiss any information that argues against that position.
In large part, we are getting exactly what the intelligence level of most Americans says we deserve to get.
Michael
Sam:
Lest we forget it was dirty harry that said a source told him Romney paid no taxes in 10 years. The truth subsequently confirmed in writing with proof by a big 4 accounting firm was that Romney paid a minimum of 14 percent in taxes every year for over 20 consecutive years. Did harry apologize?
It's politics, Sam. Pure and simple.
CarmineD
Michael,
You said "it is convenient for the Democrats and their supporters to forget that the view that of almost everyone (Democrats and Republicans and even foreign heads of state and their intelligence agencies) had at that time was that Saddam had WMD's and would provide them to terrorists".
Everyone assumed that Saddam had WMD's because he had once used them against the Kurds in Iraq, but there was NO CURRENT EVIDENCE that he still possessed them.
Between 11/27/2002 and 03/18/2003, UN weapons inspectors conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 suspected sites. They did not find any evidence of chemical or biological weapons, or that Iraq had reconstituted it's nuclear program. They found Iraq to be extremely cooperative as far as allowing access to suspected weapons sites, but there were "gaps" in Iraq's record keeping. In other words, their bookkeeping was bad. My bookkeeping is also bad. I hope no one launches a war against me.
Meanwhile, UN Security Council members favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections. Bush had promised to seek a vote from the Security Council before initiating military action but he didn't, for obvious reasons (it wouldn't have passed). So, on 03/17/2003, Bush put on his sheriff's badge, and told Saddam and his sons that they had "48 hours to get out of town, or else". We attacked Iraq 2 days later along with the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland who provided additional troops.
I am not saying that Hussein was a good guy who didn't deserve to be overthrown. But....this was a war that the Bush/Cheney administration wanted. It was a war of choice, not necessity. They spent at least a year ginning up support for it in the media. Democratic politicians were afraid to oppose it for fear of being called "soft on terror" (remember that one ?). I was disgusted by all of the democrats who went along with it (there were a few who didn't, but not enough). All of the democrats with presidential aspirations voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war (such as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden). Democrats had been intimidated by republicans ever since the 9-11 attacks. Every time they opposed the republicans on a national security issue, they were accused of being soft on terror. This was a constant drumbeat by the republicans. But, the most amazing thing is Bush and Cheney somehow managed to convince a majority of Americans that we were safer with them than the democrats, even though the 9-11 attack occurred on Bush's watch. I could never quite figure that one out.
In my opinion, most of the politicians who went along with the Iraq invasion did so, not because they believed it was right, but because they did not have the political courage to oppose it.
Ahhh...political courage. Now that's something that has been in very short supply lately.
Marty,
I agree that there were many people on both sides of the political divide that did not want to support the call for war but were afraid not to and then be wrong. Our politicians hate to be wrong and hate to be disliked. However, that does not necessarily account for all the people outside the US that believed Saddam had WMD's and would give them to terrorists.
The intelligence was faulty and there were people inside and outside the US that wanted Saddam gone and would lie to get it done by the US.
I always return to Colin Powell however, who I believe is an intelligent and principled human being and I find it hard to believe that he knew the intelligence was faulty and kwen a decision to invade was a poor decision and still participated to the degree he did. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but I find the theories that the attack was all based on nothing other than a 'desire' by Bush and others to invade Iraq to be very hard to believe.
President Bush said, without prompting that he did not believe in nation building. I can see why 9/11 could change ones thinking on that and I think that is what happened to President Bush. 9/11 happened; it happened on his watch and I think it did totally change his thinking. Was he right? No. Was he trying to do what he thought best for the country? I think he was.
Michael
Carmine,
"Sam lest we forget it was dirty Harry that said a source told him Romney paid no taxes in 10 years.The truth subsequently confirmed in writing with proof by a big 4 accounting firm was that Romney paid a minimum of 14 percent in taxes every year for over 20 consecutive years.Did Harry apologize? It's politics Sam pure and simple".
Well Carmine since Romney would not produce more than 2 years of tax returns.I will have to agree with you that It's politics Carmine pure and simple.
Michael,
I don't believe General Colin Powell knew that the intelligence information was incorrect. He was, and still is, a very honorable man. He was also a "good soldier" who knows how to follow orders, and President Bush was his Commander in Chief. That is exactly why the Bush Administration chose him to make their case for war. Who better to sell a war against Iraq, than one of the heroes of the first Gulf War ? I believe they used him. Powell has said that his role in selling the war is a blot on his career.
Powell recently released a new book on 05/22/2012 (It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership) in which he says war with Iraq was never really debated within the administration. The National Security Council never met to discuss it. It's almost as if there was an inevitability about it; not "whether" we would be going to war against Iraq, but "when". That's certainly the way it appeared to me in the year leading up to the invasion.
Here is a link to an interesting article about Powell, his book, and his infamous February 2003 speech to the United Nations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09...
In reply to Sam Pizzo; yes, I'm doing much better. Thank you for asking.
However, the reason I wrote about this was, this particular incident, I do not believe was an isolated incident of hate against seniors. I have good cause to honestly say, this may be one extremely underreported crime. Nothing has the potential to produce the vulnerabilities of a senior citizen more than when they are ill, and subject to abuses from other hospital patients and the neglect of care center management and their employees.
Sam, I'm a former U.S. Marine and a retired prison officer. I'm used to getting the unexpected and fighting all the way to the ends of the Earth. However, even I did not expect hate to surface in my hospital environment.
BEWARE FELLOW SENIORS!!!
Sam......Great letter.
YES, with the midterm elections around the corner,
the haters will AGAIN be on the outside looking
in.
Thank God for our great and wonderful
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
Thank God for our great and wonderful VICE-
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.
As PRESIDENT OBAMA once said,
"NOBODY MESSES WITH JOE".
Thank God for our great and wonderful SENATE
MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID.
And thank God for our great and wonderful
NANCY PELOSI, who will again be the
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER, after the midterm
elections.
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
BChap.......
Sorry to hear about what happened to you in the
hospital.
Hate and ignorance is a terrible thing.
And it's still here to this very day.
A sad state of affairs.
Marty.....
Good comment.
The republican lie about WMD was one of the
biggest lies ever told to us Americans and the
rest of the world.
People like Michael Casler are still in denial.
Bush pulled the weapons inspector out of Iraq
after he told Bush that he had not found any
WMD.
A week before the war started, I told all of my
friends that there was no proof of WMD and that
Iraq WAS NOT a direct threat to the U.S. and had
NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Marty,
I'll simply make these comments:
1) The Huff Post is not any more but also no less biased than FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc so the 'conclusions' they draw from Powell's book, I'll take with skepticism.
2) The quote from Powell's book says a lot more to me: 'All in all, Powell acknowledges that the speech was "one of my most momentous failures, the one with the widest-ranging impact." But he also concludes that "every senior U.S. official would have made the exact same case,". I believe Bush and most others, including Powell, believed the intelligence and acted on it, in an effort to protect America and Americans. I could be wrong of course, but that's my belief.
3) Whether the President would have been named Gore, Clinton or anyone else, at that time in history, I suspect we would have attacked Iraq, for not to do so, so soon after 9/11, would have been perceived as leaving us open to an even worse attack than 9/11.
The decision was obviously a poor one but I do understand how it was a 'likely' decision no matter who had been President... given the times and circumstances.
Michael
Michael claimed, among other things:
" Whether the President would have been named Gore, Clinton or anyone else, at that time in history, I suspect we would have attacked Iraq, for not to do so, so soon after 9/11, would have been perceived as leaving us open to an even worse attack than 9/11"
I say;
I am sure the Iraqi people have forgiven us now that you have claimed to have sorrow for them. That republican sorrow is so heartfelt.
The real history and the mans own words (Powell's) are presented to you and you still revert to "both sides would have done it" this time implying we are too stupid as citizens and a country to know that we weren't attacked by Iraq.
The right wingers here have displayed some of the stupidest logic I have ever seen on this thread. With you taking the cake.
The proper response to Sam would be "I agree, let's get moving forward" but you guys always have to get stupid.
George W. Bush's inner circle and the PNAC used our treasure and the blood of your neighbors to further their narrow personal interests.
You all have blood up to your ankles. Some should be forever tainted in blood. Especially the fake "born again" Christians in that group.
And W. belongs in prison.
BChap said:
"Sam, I'm a former U.S. Marine and a retired prison officer. I'm used to getting the unexpected and fighting all the way to the ends of the Earth. However, even I did not expect hate to surface in my hospital environment"
I say:
You weren't making YouTube video's in there, were you? In all seriousness, odd things happen to you with great regularity. I am praying for calmness for you. Glad you made it down a few more slippery slopes...
"Well Carmine since Romney would not produce more than 2 years of tax returns.I will have to agree with you that It's politics Carmine pure and simple." Sam
See we agree.
It has long been political practice to disclose the most recent year's tax returns. Most have done two years. Current and prior year which is what Romney did.
CarmineD
Carmine:
If Romney had paid a considerable percentage of INCOME TAXES over the past 15 years with no weaseling he could very easily have won the election, or made those 330k votes you so heartbreakingly you fret over change.
What is likely is that during the crash he had an effective tax rate of zero, but had high charitable giving.
If you were honest with us to the degree that makes the word honesty have integrity you would agree that he had to have a bad set of returns, or he would have taken the high road.
Michael,
JeffFromVegas made several good points in his response to your comments regarding Bush, Powell, and the Iraq invasion. I am now going to expand upon them.
The following excerpt is from an article published in a Seattle newspaper (the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) on 09/17/2003, SIX MONTHS after we invaded Iraq. Here it is:
"""President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.
The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
Bush said yesterday (09/16/2003) there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.
----------------------------
It begs the question as to why Bush waited until AFTER the invasion, before telling us that there was actually no connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks (it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out). Bush did go on to say that they believed Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida. But, as with everything else that the Bush administration told us, the CIA had no evidence of
this. It was all speculation. In other words, they WANTED us to believe things that were untrue, or that had not been proven. THIS is not a matter of speculation. This is fact.
Combine this with General Powell's statement that war with Iraq was never debated within the Administration, and the National Security Council never even met to talk about it. So who made the decision to invade Iraq ? I'll tell you who; Bush, Cheney, pro-war Republicans in Congress, and cowardly democrats who were afraid to oppose them for fear of jeopardizing their political careers.
So, the decision to invade a country (Iraq) and overthrow a dictator, was based primarily on speculation. Speculation about Iraq's connection to the 9-11 attacks. Speculation about Iraq's WMD's. Three trillion dollars later, and thousands of dead and wounded Americans later, we are still paying for this war. When they talk about Obama's 16 trillion dollar national debt, remember that 3 trillion of it came from the war.
I am absolutely certain that we would not have invaded Iraq if Al Gore had been elected President in 2000. And, the tragedy of it, is that it all came down to 537 votes in Florida, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision that stopped the recount. That's the truly sad part.
I think the next time someone wants to talk about the "four" dead Americans in Benghazi, I am going to remind them about the "four thousand" brave Americans soldiers who died in Iraq, in a war that didn't have to be. They were sent there by "chicken-hawks", such as Bush and Cheney, who avoided putting themselves in harm's way during the Vietnam War.
In 1989, Dick Cheney told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Yeah, other priorities. Like not getting shot at ? And, of course, Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard, where the risk of seeing combat was slim to none.
I have no respect for these guys. None at all.
"If you were honest with us to the degree that makes the word honesty have integrity you would agree that he had to have a bad set of returns, or he would have taken the high road." @ Jeff
Recall I posted here many times that he should have disclosed his tax returns LONG BEFORE he did and not doing so was a huge political mistake.
However I defended his right not to do so BECAUSE he followed the same poltical protocol for tax return releases that all presidential candidates followed before him. He was held to higher standard which his father established in 1968 AND NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE since has ever followed. 12 years worth.
CarmineD
Carmine,
Actually you are incorrect. Romney was not held to a higher standard regarding his tax returns. Since 1984, only two candidates for the Presidency have offerred as little as two years of tax returns. One was John McCain in 2008. The other was Mitt Romney.
Here is a list of other Presidential candidates, and how many years of returns they submitted:
Robert Dole (1996)- 30 years
John Kerry (2004) - 20 years
Bill Clinton (1992) - 12 years
George W. Bush (2000) - 9 years
Barack Obama (2008) - 7 years
Michael Dukakis (1988) - 6 years
You should try to get your facts straight, Carmen.
"One was John McCain in 2008. The other was Mitt Romney."
Hmmmm.
A couple of losers...
...and both stuffshirts
Carmine,
"It has long been political practice to disclose the most recent year's tax returns.Most have done two years.Current and prior year which is what Romney did".
Actually Romney produced 2 years taxes under pressure from voter's.He did not follow his Father's example when he was asked for his current year's taxes. Gov.George Romney (father of Mitt) who ran an unsuccessful bid for president in 1968 produced 12 years taxes,saying 1 or 2 years taxes could be a fluke.
Gov.Mitt Romney just gave out what he thought he could get away with, and that move may have cost him the election. It's politics pure and simple,that part we do agree on.
Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton in 2016! ;-)