Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Prius04, please give examples of Karl Rove using character assasination. The investigation into the Koran at Gitmo produced 5 incidents, 3 of them accidental. The other 2 were dealt with by punishing the ex-soldier involved. By the way, Saudi Arabia destroys all Korans coming into the country not printed in Saudi Arabia. Let's punish the Saudi's...The Newsweek article was bunk; that's why they retracted it. Dan Rather was bunk; that's why he's gone. In the very words of the left: "It's not the accuracy of the evidence that counts; it's the seriousness of the charge."

 

We will never punish the Saudis even though we should on many counts. They have us over the barrell in many ways. (pun intended) The Newsweek article has now been called bunk but if you don't think we have a propaganda machine at work there, ask yourself why many are calling for independent investigations in lieu of Military investigations. I don't think you can claim to know why Dan Rather was canned, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am unable to give specific instances of the behind the scene activities of Karl Rove, but I can assure you that many observers, while giving the devil his due and proclaiming how good he is at his job, they have also pointed out his proclivity to provide misinformation. I doubt you trust Molly Ivins as a source, unfortunately, I don't log things down when I read editorials.

 

Fredatgolf, hello. This is a war we're engaged in. The military must be allowed to discipline its own. The people housed in Gitmo, as in Abu Ghraib, were thugs, plain and simple. Remember, it was AMERICA, thru its military, that provided these thugs with Korans. Sending civilian investigators into Gitmo is due to a lawsuit by Amnesty International, the same bunch that called Gitmo "a gulag". It's a hideous travesty. The request for examples about Karl Rove was directed to Prius04. If you'll look at the posting above by Prius04, he is responding to my comment that, like Clinton, Bush doesn't call people names. I stay away from most newpapers. I do read the Wall Street Journal and the Washington(DC) Times from time to time. I also read The Weekly Standard, and National Review; and I read authors like Tomas Sowell, Victor Hansen Davis, David Horowitz, Brent Bozell, Robert Novak, Tony Snow. And, unlike you, I DO watch Fox News...and there you have it.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

I will let Prius4 provide the Karl Rove character assasinations. I do disagree with the statement "Bush doesn't call people names".

George W. Bush September 2000
"There's Adam Clymer, major-league donkey from The New York Times."

 

Robert Novak says it all.

 

Fredatgolf, have you done any aftermarket modifications to your Prius?

 

I have tinted windows, leather armrests, plastic mats. We ordered leather but when we saw the color of the car for the first time, switched to a car that did not have leather. I am glad I have cloth now because it is a miracle fabric, but the armrests appeared vulnerable. I'm not sure if that is what you mean when you say aftermarket. I also bought a hood for the MFD.

 

Fredatgolf; thanx, that's exactly what I meant. We're seriously considering leather. We have a daughter who happens to be a Golden Retriever named Casey. We bought a new Accord 6 months ago with leather seats. We're very active with Casey; and the leather and the all-weather floor mats make cleaning the car of her hair a snap. The Accord is the first car we've owned that has a non-cloth interior, and it's made a heck of a difference. Where did you order the MFD hood from; is it easy to install, and has it made a difference for you?

 

I ordered the hood and armrests from http://stores.ebay.com/Prius-Hoods_W0QQssP...aderLinksQQtZkm?
I can't say it has made a big difference yet, but before I ordered it there were numerous times I could hardly see the screen. The mats I got from matdept.com.

 

Fredatgolf, thany you so much for the info. I assume, by your username, that your a golf devotee. Is my assumption correct? My late father was the oldest of 7 children, all boys. No less than 3 of his brothers were golf pros, two of them being very successful as teaching pros. Neither my father nor I became involved with golf, but I grew up with a healthy respect for the meaning and importance of the sport.

 

Yes, my work history is: Three years of military after completing OCS in the Navy; 15 months as an Assistant Golf Professional; Eight years of working for a large company; Eleven years of owning my own business; Nine years in academia after obtaining a Masters in Teaching; Seven years of outplacement work after returning to NC; Seven years as a Golf Professional after my wife decided she wanted to move to this area, her dream spot. Retired May 1st. What about you? How long have you been truck driving? (I assume I am asking that question to John and not Emily.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"95963)</div>

Actually, the entire list is a whose who of “Corporatistsâ€. And what says it better than Novak is the Washington Times. Owned by Sun Myung Moon and when the WT says something credible, it's simply due to the law of averages.

EJ,
I'm glad you like the Prius, and that you can change the subject to leather interiors and all, but your worldview seems to come out of “agenda based†news sources. And the agenda of those news sources is an extreme procorporate one. It is strongly laissez fairre. This world view was once known as "Corporatism" and although it didn't have a name back then, it was the predominant model of the American 19th century and early 20th. It holds that the backbone of a nation are the leaders and CEOs and Bankers and that it is in the best interest of the nation to promote their agenda by regressive taxation, minimal to zero regulation, no programs to help the masses thrive, and a weakening of the rights of workers.

Back in the 1950's, those that held this view were losing and losing fast. They decided that something must be done and they proceeded to create such think tanks as the Cato Institutie, and the Heritage Foundation. Those think tanks were not based upon science as much as they were based upon "corporatism". And they also worked to consolidate the control of our media. And to this day they continue to have many Americans convinced that the bulk of the media is liberal, when in fact that hasn't been true for 20 years. There may be “a†liberal here and there, and a “progressive†story might leak out once in awhile, but they don’t control things anymore.

My world view is that the backbone of a nation are the masses of people. And the best way to empower them is with progressive taxation, regulation of the corporations so they are more restricted in how much they can take advantage of a nations resources and workers, and workers rights. Cardinal to that are programs that help people to thrive.

So lets look at history. The "corporate view" was predominant pretty much from our founding until somewhere between 1895 to 1915. That is when a progressive view, or better yet we saw the rise of American liberalism. That view never became as entrenched as did the "corporatist" view, though it did succeed significantly. By that I mean the rich never did lose all their power and wealth -- like the rich did in Russia -- only that the balance between the rich and the masses was more balanced. That "liberal" economic and social view was more predominant from about 1915 to about 1975-1985. That was when taxes turned back to being more regressive, deregulation was the buzzword, and Unions started to wane.

Now lets compare progress rates. Personally, I think 20th century American social progress, social justice, economic wealth, cultural wealth and other measures of a people blew away similar measures of a peoples progress when compared to the American 19th century. And now that the pendulum has been swinging back towards the "corporatists", progress for the USA is slowing for this nation. This is not a coincidence.

So this is why I’m a liberal. I think it works. It works for America and Americans and history tells us so. Now I do believe that there is such a thing as a patriotic America loving Conservative. But that is not the view of conservative leaders. Those leaders are more pro-profit, pro corporate, and pro their own class interests than they are pro America and Pro American.

Faux News and the Washington Times are “corporatists†first, and “Americans†second, IMHO. And they will do anything to obfuscate things to see to it that their agenda succeeds. And your list of authors/columnists is either made up of similarly minded “corporatistsâ€, or made up of those duped by them.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Prius04; I like much of what you say and I appreciate the time you took to write it. I particularly like this paragraph: "So this is why I’m a liberal. I think it works. It works for America and Americans and history tells us so. Now I do believe that there is such a thing as a patriotic America loving Conservative. But that is not the view of conservative leaders. Those leaders are more pro-profit, pro corporate, and pro their own class interests than they are pro America and Pro American." I am happy that you are comfortable calling yourself a liberal because many who favor that philosophy have discontinued the use of the term liberal since it has been so skillfully desecrated and decimated by name callers. The only reason I no longer refer to myself that way is because it seems to obfuscate the process of looking at issues simply on the basis of merit. I am uncomfortatble with a few party-line stances on things. For instance, affirmative action is so complex an issue that I don't believe it should receive a carte blanche, but should be looked at line by line as it applies in each situation. I focused my studies on the 20th century but have never seen such a clear explication of the past hundred years, albeit focused primarily on economics. To me, it is so sad that universal health care cannot receive serious consideration in our society because of the "Corporatism" you refer to. The need is so great. Our comparison with other societies is so stark.

There are many issues on the right that concern me. I think it strangely odd that Evangelicals preach so strong about following Christ and favor the death penalty with such vengeance thereby shutting out debate on a very serious issue.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Unfortunately at this time in history Corporate Interests are completely counter to average American Citizen interests. Corporations seek to maximize profits no matter what and that includes their own long term interests like not investing enough in R&D or not bringing a product to the market due to low profit margins (some drugs). Maximizing profits often means going against those same corporate workers' interests (like low minimum wage) or shifting corporate burdens onto the public (Like Walmart not providing health coverage) and thereby shifting that corporate responsibility to the public trough. For the past century we have preached societal responsibility for individuals and it has worked to a greater or lesser extent (like encouraging whistle blowers, creating non-profits to help the less fortunate, taking pride in our nation's infrastructure, providing the best education for the upcoming generations, etc.).

There was a time when corporations at least paid lip service to these same societal responsibilities (like providing health insurance and corporate matching of retirement plans). The trend now is for corporations to ignore all responsibilities except their new mantra of "our only responsibility is to maximize profits for shareholders".

Have you ever read the history of the inception of corporations? Basically, a few rich men got together and bribed a few supportive congress-persons to wait till a holiday weekend in congress. When all congress-persons went home to their constituents for the long weekend a few stayed behind and introduced, passed, and signed a bill into law which created a new entity called 'corporation' which was granted all the rights as an individual, but with a few important exceptions...no/low corporate tax and almost no accountability for wrong doings. This bill was passed and signed into law behind the backs of most in congress at the time. Let's face it. Anything created in such an underhanded manner is not in the best interest of the majority of people in this country. And thus the blood suckers were born, and empowered to change the course of a reasonably responsible society into a free-for-all for the rich. They get great access to society's treasures like natural resources and the air waves, rape and pillage for the taking, then leave their contaminated mess behind for society to clean up.

While the entity of corporations may be here to stay, there are regulatory methods of keeping the beast in check. The most realistic is through taxation. I say, if a corporation wishes to market to our citizens they should pay for the privilege by paying a % of their income into the public kitty. Yes, I've heard all the manufactured excuses of "if we make them pay they will just move to another country, they should be able to deduct whatever before getting to taxable income, they provide the jobs, etc.. My response is 'this is a pay to play society' and one (including churches and non-profits) should either pay to play or be banned from the US money-making machine.

From what I can tell, corporations are a net drain to our common good and should either be banned or made to become an asset by one means or another.

 

Thanks FredatGolf,

I also tend to avoid the word liberal because it has been so stigmatized in the last 20 years. Right wingers have defined it in such a way that according to their definition, I would hate liberals too.

And I also avoid being called a Democrat. I vote Democrat because they are by far the lessor evil, but boy have they made a lot of mistakes. (But what I tell people is that when Democrats pass laws that hurt common folk, they do it by mistake, when Republicans pass laws that hurt common folk, that is the intent.)

As for the death penalty, the death penalty is purely an appeal to emotion. It makes no scientific sense, it only makes victims feel good.

And as for politicians, its an easy way to pretend that you are tough on crime. Politicans can say, "look at me, I'm so tough on crime because I want the death penalty for jaywalking". Whereas science tells us that its not the size of the punishment as much as the surety of it. Thus, the real way to lower crime is to have more police, judges and courts, but that costs money. Its a lot cheaper on the outset to just want the death penalty. (even though in the long run, the death penalty is almost always more expensive than life in prison)

 

Europe has become a bastion of liberalism. Unemployment is sky-high while entitlement demands skyrocket. Their economies are stagnant; they cannot defend themselves in the event of a major threat, because they do not have the funds to finance a formidable military. They have to appease terrorists in hopes that the terrorists will show them mercy; France, Germany, and Spain are prime examples. They have 3rd rate medical care because liberalism has removed the incentive for the best and brightest to go into medicine. We should recall the 10,000 elderly who died a couple of years ago in France because there were no provisions to protect them from the Summer heatwave. Same sex marriages that were instituted in Scandanavian countries over a decade ago have resulted in skyrocketing illegitimacy, lending legitimacy to illegitimacy. Many people in Holland and France feel they are losing their countries because of liberal attitudes toward immigration. And a clear rejection of these liberal policies is the rejection of the EU constitution by voters. Capitalism and liberty are what made this country great. You and I enjoy the benefits of profits and economic growth every day. No other country in the world enjoys what we have. And if you think for one minute that conservativism impedes the growth we have enjoyed so consistenly, then you don't know what conservatism is.

 

Also, I FAVOR THE DEATH PENALTY. How do you GUARANTEE society that that person will never commit that heinous crime again? The death penalty is the best deterrant for recidivism. Housing someone in jail is merely a BET that he will never commit murder again. To me, that's not nearly good enough. Society deserves a guarantee that a murderer will not have the opportunity to repeat his offense. Jail time is no guarantee.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96090)</div>

Did you know that the states WITH the death penalty tend to have higher capital crime rates than states that do not? *(Not all, but most)

Did you know that states that have gone from having the death penalty to getting rid of it have seen capital murder crime rates decline?

Did you know that states that re-imposed the death penalty after having it rescinded saw an increase in capital murder rates?

What does this suggest? It suggests that murder rates have complex causes and that just maybe when society itself says that it is OK to kill under certain circumstances, that maybe the poplulace will internalize that philosophy and conclude that its OK for THEM to kill under certain circumstances?

And when a society proclaims that it finds the killing of human beings so abhorrent that it will not even kill the abhorrent among us, just maybe the populace will internalize this belief as well, and never see killing as an personal option. Now obviously this will not work in all cases, but I'm not talking about all cases, I'm talking about overall rates.

So your contention that at least that one murderer won't kill again may be true, but if killing him results in others internalizing the idea that killing can be justified, then you just might see others murdered.

Take a look at the murder statististics in states with and without the death penalty. It's quite interesting. Now science cannot conclude that having a death penalty CAUSES a higher murder rate, but the numbers certainly are there to suggest that it does. The most classic example was when France got rid of capital punishment back in the 1920s. Their murder rate went down by a gigantic amount. It has been suggested that some of that had to do with the "theatrical" way people were killed -- the guillotine.

Jesus said "He who is without sin cast the first stone." He said that because he knew that no one could be without sin. It takes mental gymnastics to conclude that this means anything other than a condemnation of the death penalty.

And I'm not jumping at your other post. It would take me 3 hours to correct all you facts. And only once your facts are corrected can I touch your conclusions.

And if it was capitalism and freedom that resulted in the accomplishments in the 20th century in the USA, how come we didn't see the same improvement rates in the 19th century? And why is it that those improvements have slowed so much since about 1985?

And if things are so lousy in Europe, how can you explain that their GNP is about equal to ours? And if you subtract fast food and war production, there GNP is miles ahead of ours.

And the best of American health care is indeed better than the best of European health care. But most American's don't have steady access to the best of American health care. The health care that most Americans have steady access to is poorer than what most Europeans have steady access to.


Empower rich people and get 19th century growth rates.
Empower the common man and get 20th century rates. To me its a no brainer, but then I stay away from the corporate media. That media spends a lot of money trying to convince the masses that the 20th century was some kind of mistake. And it's paying off.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Thanks MarinJohn.
Prius04: Right on with the lesser of two evils. Evil is not the intent of either side in the political spectrum. I believe the left is evil as a result of the process and the right is evil as a result of ingnorance. This ignorance is a result of half-truths and manipulation. Emilyjohn avoids a serious discussion on the death penalty for instance by playing on the fear of repeat offences. Fear is the main weapon of the manipulator and the demagogue. I am not suggesting that Emilyjohn is either, but that he/she has been victimized by both. I, too, want to insure that certain crimes result in jail time for life. They have unsuccessfully sought to provide evidence for 40 years of my lifetime that the death penalty reduces the crime rate. As Prius04 points out, the death penalty certainly saves no money for the state. So, as he says, the only remaining reason to continue the death penalty is for the satisfaction of the wronged. So much for Christliness. I hope everyone has seen the inspiring handful of progress reports on how forgiveness has played such an important role in the lives of the forgiver and the forgived some of whom are still behind bars. Hey, let's not even get into the high percentage of time the criminal justice system has failed. How about growth in human character and understanding as a worthwhile goal? For those of us who claim to be Christians, isn't that what the New Testament is about? Do I sound like an Evangelical? How about that? Surely we can find common cause.

Remember what Prius04 is implying. Both sides are evil. The ideology, by implication, of the liberals is not then necessarily good, only less evil. It is absolutely by intent that Republicans pass laws against individuals and have convinced us that every thing they do for corporations will trickle down and make the economy healthy. We will all become healthier when we break away from the mesmerism.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

I completely agree with you Fred on the death penalty issue. The stats are pretty convincing that it doesn't prevent crime, yet so many pro-lifers still push for it. To me, it just doesn't make sense to be anti-abortion, yet pro-death penalty, but that is just one evalengicals opinion.

While I consider myself as a strong conservative, I do see the half-truths and manipulations used by many Republicans. Not because they are Republicans, but because they are politicians (and even more basic, they are humans). So, even though I am a conservative, as a student of the human psyche, I see individuals on both sides of the aisle using the "truth" to get manipulate people in the direction they want them to go.