Please ask your grandchildren to show you the Internet, including popular photo-sharing site flickr.

"It was a peaceful, well-attended protest against a government gone very much astray. A protest, I might add, that was making a point of telling all government officials that we are aware and watching. A great man once said, "Government is like a fire. When controlled it works for your benefit, when not controlled it is a menace."

Valid opinion, followed by invalid snark.

The paragraph you snipped might be valid but it doesn't reflect the theme of the letter. The writer defends Glenn Beck whose well known criticism of the President is his unsubstantiated hatred for white people. He finishes with a lament for the radicals in the White House. Names please? If all the former Goldman officers with whom Obama surrounds himself are radical, then I'll need a better conceptualization of the term.

So the name Glen Beck causes a disconnect in your mind?
"Well, now they went and mentioned that dingleberry, I don't need to consider the rest."
A stopped clock is right twice a day. What would you do if you read something he said that you agree with? No troubles, the disconnect has you covered...

Leftists, Marxists, communists in everything but name. Find one close to him completely free of such taint.

Why are you so obsessed with the taint? Consider the politics of a random person in the Obama administration. It ain't Socialist. It ain't Communist. Yet there is taint? Can you show me this taint?

The radicals were voted out last year.
Now let the new administration try to help the country instead of using it's resources for it's own personal gain and personal vendettas, like the last administration.

It took BWB 8 years to completely bankrupt the country, morally and financially.
Obama has been in office for less than a year and is well on his way to bringing this country back to the people than GWB ever would.

It took GWB less than 2 years to get us attacked and start a war.
3 years to start the 2nd and 8 years to leave us on the brink of financial collapse.


Which White House is radical again?

It is marxism/socialism.

Van Jones - communist - criminal
Cass Sunstein - believes animals are required to have legal counsel. Believes it is okay for a 15 year old boy to have sex with a 30 year old man (as long as a condom is used)
Andy Stern SEIU president, has visited the white house more than ANY other visitor is a marxist.
Ann Dunn - turns to Mao for inspiration - she turns to a marxist murderer of over 70million people.
Tim Geihtner - tax cheat.

All the above are tainted and four of them are marxist/socialist intending to "spread the wealth" with the "power of persuasion" and if that doesn't work they will use "the persuation of power."

Wake up people.

Nope haven't gotten the meds straightened out yet, keep working on them.

Bush got us attacked? Nice.
Barney Frank, Clinton, Carter, Bush, Bush, Regan, and Tim Geihtner bankrupted the country.

Now Obamer is trying to spend our way out of bankruptcy.

Let me under stand this, if you have no money (you're bankrupt) you ned to spend more. You (they) haven't thought this through have you?

The current house is radical - why do you choose (like the un-evolved monkies) to remain an ignoranus, or are you just playing?

With all the information available, I have to believe it is that you are playing.

You forgot to add: THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Click to view attachment

The writer's defense of Glenn Beck is that we should be attentive to Glenn Beck. You seem to think random monkeys might tap something agreeable into his teleprompter should we heed this advice. Perhaps, but that argument is not compelling.

The White House looks like a Goldman-Sachs branch office. That's a company not exactly noted for cranking out "leftists, Marxists, communists." Seriously, let's have the name of a Marxist in the White House. (Historiographers don't count)

Guess you can't post without personal attacks?

Commonality between Bush and Obama is that they are both mere seat-holders.

Stop foolisly blaming one or the other. You do understand how misdirection works?

If the Bush administration and the GOP want to take credit for "keeping us safe" for the years following 9/11, then credit needs to be put on them for letting us get attacked.

Can't have it both ways.

How did he do that? He was in office for less than eight months on 9/11/01. Hate the guy all you want, and I'll agree he was a tool, but 9/11 cannot be pinned on him.

I agree that he can not be given all of the blame for 9/11. Some, but not all.
I only use the absolute because, using their own logic, that they kept us safe after 9/11. Then they must take credit for letting us get attacked.

Huh ? why does he have to be blamed for the attack just because he claims to have kept us safe? I'm not following your logic.



so if you are walking down the street, and someone tries to mug you, you then defend yourself, so by your logic it's your fault the guy tried to mug you in the first place ?

Opinion only, but helps show the logic. Excerpts from the article.
<h2 class="entry-title">
</h2> By David Neiwert Sunday Jan 11, 2009 4:00pm


1. Bush also laid the groundwork for future terrorist attacks. The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, after all, warned that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent Bush policies -- including the use of torture -- have in fact made the likelihood of future terrorist attacks exponentially greater.

2. Bush didn't keep us safe before 9/11. The historical record is clear that prior to that event, Bush dismissed counterterror concerns as a "Clinton thing," and he was clearly asleep at the wheel on the day it occurred. Any president who allowed the worst terrorist attack on American soil on his watch has no business subsequently claiming that he kept the country safe. (Also worth noting: The lack of any international terrorist attack in the intervening years is not evidence that Bush's post-9/11 strategy actually prevented anything.)

3. There in fact have been other terrorist attacks since 9/11. The most noteworthy of these was the October-November 2001 anthrax attacks, which killed five people, and has still gone unsolved. There have also been planned attacks nipped in the bud: a planned cyanide bombing, a man who intended to blow up LA banks, a former Army Ranger who planned to bomb abortion clinics, and the Alabama militiamen who intended to go on an anti-Latino killing rampage. There have been a number of lower-level acts of terrorism that reached fruition as well, ranging from rampaging gunmen in Knoxville, Tenn., and Moscow, Idaho, to a conservative wingnut who was sending out hoax anthrax letters.

All of these cases underscore the fact that domestic terrorism is almost completely off the Bush administration's radar -- except, of course, for those "eco-terrorists." What the "war on terror" we've gotten from Bush has amounted has been little more than a political marketing campaign.






It is not my logic. It is the logic of the "Bush kept us safe" crowd.

Almost any president in History could make the same claim. Except Bush is the only sitting Pres. that was attacked to the degree of 9/11 on our soil.

If it wasn't such a talking point for the GWB administration, I would not even make such a statement.

I didn't think one statement would eat up the thread.
Let's get back on topic, eh?

But have you seen their taint with your own eyes? Or do you just look at taint on the Internet?

Not a good start!

It's not the Bush gangs logic, it is your interpretation thereof. I doubt it's fair to say because he did "this" he must have done "that". Those are your dots to connect.



The thread is fine, what is eating the thread up is that you interjected your own opinion and dressed it as the logic of the other side.

After the first trade Center attack, conservatives blamed Clinton although he was in office for about a month. Now they absolve Bush of 9/11 because he was only in office for nine.

It was probably impossible to thwart 9/11 but clearly Bush's initial foreign policy strategy was wrong-headed. With a cabinet stocked with Cold Warriors, his Administration's initial concern was a missle defense shield. A ten year old with some awareness could have concluded that was misguided after 1991. Unfortunately, we didn't elect an ten year old; we elected George W. Bush.

I agree that Clinton was not to blame for the first attack on the WTC. I also think Bush is not the problem with the last one iether. I'm pretty sure the planning for this started well before the terrorists even knew who would be the next president. No argument about foriegn policy being wrong.

This is my initial post:

One line that you and Greiker disagree with has turned into a back and forth that won't be resolved.
Enough already. Move on.


Last I checked, this IS the opinion page.

Yes this is the opinion page, so when someones differs from yours, your response is "enough already" ? I simply pointed out that you offered an opinion of what you think somebody else thought. I just don't see it as a valid point.

With my own eyes and ears!

It took GWB less than 2 years to get us attacked and start a war

You stated this as fact not opion. He had nothing to do with us being attacked but he did retalliate by starting a war in a place where all concerned nations had the same information that WMDs did exist.

Back to topic.

Radicals have been in the house for a very very long time, nothing new there.

Then I can understand why the taint leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Puh-leaze. The Germans and French were skeptical from the beginning. Conservatives went to the streets to pour French wines down sewers in response. And from the Downing Street memo we know the UK was also skeptical. From the memo: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

I am saying enough already because this conversation is far from the topic of the thread.
I don't want to have the thread hijacked by this side topic.
If you would like to talk about 9/11 and who is or is not responsible. Start a new thread.
Let's go back to why some think this administration is full of radicals.
The only reason I brought up the GWB admin. is people are so hot to call this admin a sham in 9 months and the last admin was defended by the same people who bash this one.

Specifically, why are some so interested in the taints of those in the administration?

I don't know?
Ask them.
I want to know the answer to that question too.

As far as this people is concerned, both admins were full of radicals. During the Bush admin they went by neocons. So your observation falls flat in my case.

Different parties, same trajectory. Social democracy with an eye towards communist style socialism.

Because they know better than we do what's good for us. Some are more equal than others, after all.

The big difference is that you are projecting what the current administration is going to do and what their motives are.
The last administration has proven what they were about.

Your opinion that the current administration thinks "they know better than we do what's good for us." is just that. Your opinion.

Stay in a state of denial if you like, but the majority of you fellow citizens voted for this administration and are pleased with what they see so far.

Of course, things could be better. They should probably start railroading policies like the last administration did. I hope they stop playing the conservatives game soon and do what they were elected to do.
But so far so good in my opinion.

Last admin bad. This admin good. But it could be better, if it acted more like the last admin.

See the forrest, dammit. Stop myopically focusing on just the tree in front of you.

if you are walking down the street and someone warns you that the person walking your way is going to attack you, and you do nothing, it is your fault when he attacks you and you do nothing.
bush was warned, that can be proven.
bush did nothing to protect us, that can be proven.
bush stayed on vacation,loafing, that can be proven.
but you say when we were attacked after bush was warned and did nothing to protect us, it wasn't his fault?
are you serious?
bush did not keep us safe at all. he put us in peril by not doing his job.
and we were attacked.
and then he invaded the wrong country.
but that wasn't his fault either.
LOL

You have a point.
The difference in my mind is the motive of the admin.
The other difference is, the last admin was given a chance to do the right thing time and time again and this admin is being thrown under the bus without a chance to even get going.

and conservative say that clinton was bad at fighting terror...

yet those same cons can't name one thing bush changed BEFORE 9-11...

to correct clinton...

and that's because...whatever clinton's faults about terror..

bush was worse..

CNN has determined that Iraq had/has weapons of mass destruction.

I wonder how Huesain (not Barack) killed all those Kurds?

Well, since we know you are so interested in the taint, keep in mind if Iraq had WoMD, they were tainted with a stamp reading "Made in the USA".

cheney said "reconstituted nukes"..

he lied..

but that's ok

because i don't care that hundreds of thousands were killed by my hero Saddam

that's because they deserved it

because they were probably supporting the gop

and the gop is bad because they don't want to give me a fish

they want to teach me how to fish so i can get it myself

but why should i because they earn so much money

so i want to get more of it from them

but cheney lied and so did adams and roosevelt and truman but i don't blame him

even though he came from independence and i don't believe in independence

because i believe in dependence like all goods dems should

time for the koolaid

double space

double space

double space

lol

lol

lol

Click to view attachment
uhh, that's a republican congratulating Saddam for a job well done.

reconstituted nuclear program...

Griekerland has an interesting time-space continuum. The last chemical weapons attack occurred in March 1991. The Gulf War cease-fire terms established by UN Resolution 687 were finalized in April of that year. In the reality based community, April follows March.

he said nukes...

not nuke program...lol..

curveball told them...the program was long over...

but as wolfie said..

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Obama bowing to a Saudi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

Obama has communits in his administration...

Obama's administration looks to Mao for inspiration...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1zg2NOCn8

Obama's Czars
Richard HolbrookeAfghanistan CzarUltra liberal anti gun former Gov. of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.Kenneth FeinbergPay CzarChief of Staff to TED KENNEDY.Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.John HoldrenScience CzarFierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist.Claims US business has caused world poverty.No Science training.OK to abort a child until the age of two.Thinks TREES should be able to sue humans.John BrennanTerrorism CzarAnti CIA activist.No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs.Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military
"Judge me by the company I keep"

Nice Job Mr President.



http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09...eney.interview/

no it can't, your spin on reality is whatever you want it to be. You havent the clarity of thought to add anything to this. Youv'e beat the hate republican drum without any real susbtance for so long that you believe your own spin. sad

Greikerland must be an alternative universe. In the reality-based community, Richard Holbrooke was never Governor of New Mexico. He's a career diplomat and I'm unaware of his opinions on abortion, guns and drugs. Even if they differ from yours he has as much legislative power as you have.


In Greikerland, Kenneth Feinberg got rich off 9/11 victims. In the reality-based community, he was the head of the September 11th Compensation Fund. Do you know how much he was paid for that? ZERO. He worked for 33 months entirely pro bono. (Hint to Greiker: that means without pay)


In Greikerland, John Holdren has no science training. In the reality-based community, Holdren studied aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. He recieved his bachelors degree at MIT and his PhD at Stamford.

In Greikerland, John Brennan has no training in diplomacy and government. In the reality-based community, he has a BA in political science and a Masters in government with a concentration in Middle-eastern studies. I'd say those are pretty valuable assets for a man in his position.