And Now For The Down Sides by David Horowitz

AB_Shorts_Momma

AB_Shorts_Momma

Milforum Otaku
And Now For The Down Sides
First Obama had a Muslim jihadist say a prayer at his inauguration.

Then he had a senile Christian racist, Joseph Lowery, give another ("we ask you to help us work for the day when black will not be asked to get in the back, when brown can stick around....when white will embrace what's right...").

I've got news for this sick man who once took an award from the even sicker Moamar Qaddaffi: there is no black or brown country yet, in the entire world that embraces rights the way this majority white one does. How about a little graciousness towards those who actually made this day possible.

And then of course there was the verbally challenged Poet Laureate who offered up notes for something -- poetry, prose who knows? Maybe she put off the actual writing until it was too late to cough up anything but her notes.

And what can "Love with no need to preempt grievance" possibly mean? In English that is.

Poet Elizabeth Alexander's poem, delivered at the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Praise song for the day.

Each day we go about our business, walking past each other, catching each others’ eyes or not, about to speak or speaking. All about us is noise. All about us is noise and bramble, thorn and din, each one of our ancestors on our tongues. Someone is stitching up a hem, darning a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, repairing the things in need of repair. Someone is trying to make music somewhere with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice. A woman and her son wait for the bus. A farmer considers the changing sky; A teacher says, “Take out your pencils. Begin.” We encounter each other in words, Words spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed; Words to consider, reconsider. We cross dirt roads and highways that mark the will of someone and then others who said, “I need to see what’s on the other side; I know there’s something better down the road.” We need to find a place where we are safe; We walk into that which we cannot yet see. Say it plain, that many have died for this day. Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would then keep clean and work inside of. Praise song for struggle; praise song for the day. Praise song for every hand-lettered sign; The figuring it out at kitchen tables. Some live by “Love thy neighbor as thy self.” Others by first do no harm, or take no more than you need. What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to preempt grievance. In today’s sharp sparkle, this winter air, anything can be made, any sentence begun. On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp -- praise song for walking forward in that light.

And this -- from Mike Antonovich -- needs no comment:

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"




http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.aspx?GUID=D4854EB5-5503-4A1A-9DF1-2CB0C0C85F7B


Posted at 2:23 PM on 1/20/2009 by David Horowitz



Just a little something to make you think....​
 
Well for better or worse. Whether you voted for him or not. Whether you like him or not. He is now CINC. So he deserves the respect the office carries. You'll learn this soon enough. You don't have to respect the man, but you have to respect the rank.

I guess I'd tell him what the Seabee Chief Petty Officer told the New CO.

"Ya got a good lashup here Mister. Don't louse it up."
 
Well perhaps the media would have showed Bush a little more compassion had he not started a war that had already been deemed unnecessary.
 
I see that just 2 days after the inauguration, (even before Obama has done anything yet) the rightwing media on the internet has decided to ignore the calls for bipartisanship and revert to the only thing its good at...SMEAR.

Talk about your sore losers...
 
Last edited:
AB_Shorts_Momma said:
LOL... did you expect any different? Media and lawyers... they don't change much.
Click to expand...

I admit I was naive...I was kinda hoping they would grow up abit. None of us, Liberals or Conservatives have the time for this petty sniping, our problems are both big and real.
 
mmarsh said:
I admit I was naive...I was kinda hoping they would grow up abit. None of us, Liberals or Conservatives have the time for this petty sniping, our problems are both big and real.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I can't remember a time when newspapers weren't mainly gosip columns, or fluff pieces. Real problems are too hard to report on, because then a solution is expected as well. (Yes, I do get sarcastic every now and then... my kids taught me how to do that! :mrgreen: )

Honestly, what is the most famous news article (in the US as least)? I would bet it is "Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus". That was printed in 1897 if I'm not mistaken. The point is, in the year's since, there has been "real news", and yet this editorial is more known....
 
AB_Shorts_Momma said:
I don't think the media shows anyone compassion, no matter who/what they are...
Click to expand...
Sometimes they do. Primarily to lure their victims into a false sense of security before they pounce. Well ok that is pretty cynical of me. The press may occasionally show real compassion but their emotions are as fickle as a schoolgirls.
 
The Other Guy said:
Well perhaps the media would have showed Bush a little more compassion had he not started a war that had already been deemed unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The man is out of office already. You should be happy about that. But I suspect that the shoe will now be on the other foot as you will have to defend the policies of PBOB to the conservatives.
 
HokieMSG said:
The man is out of office already. You should be happy about that. But I suspect that the shoe will now be on the other foot as you will have to defend the policies of PBOB to the conservatives.
Click to expand...

The man is out of office, but the damage he created is done. Its going to a LOOOONG time to fully expunge the mess he created, probably longer than a two-term Obama Administration. A decade at least is my guess.
 
mmarsh said:
The man is out of office, but the damage he created is done. Its going to a LOOOONG time to fully expunge the mess he created, probably longer than a two-term Obama Administration. A decade at least is my guess.
Click to expand...

We can say the same thing about BJ Clinton. I think that we are going to hear a lot more about "stuff" that Clinton, his foundation and his wife are going to do to sell the country down the river.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/23/clinton-foundation-mum-on-stock-buyer/

Lets look at some of the donors to the Clinton Foundation who might want to have influence with the sitting secretary of state.
I'll keep it to just governements
$1M-$5M
Oman
Brunei
Taiwan
Quatar
Kuwait

$5M-$10M
Norway

$10M-$25M
Saudi Arabia
Dominican Republic (through COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico)

Can YOU SAY CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
 
I was under the impression that the Clinton foundation was a charitable organization. So how exactly would who donated to it create a conflict of interest?

As in, how exactly does Hillary Clinton benefit from donations to her husband's charity?
 
WNxRogue said:
I was under the impression that the Clinton foundation was a charitable organization. So how exactly would who donated to it create a conflict of interest?

As in, how exactly does Hillary Clinton benefit from donations to her husband's charity?
Click to expand...

The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation was setup by her husband. It has over the years, recieved significant donataions from foreign countries. In her role as secretary of state, she is supposed to represent the interests of the US. It can be considered a conflict of interest for her because if foreign countries continue to donate, the impression of impropriety may be inferred. The minute she supports a decision that is beneficial to a country that has donated to her husbands foundation, her motivation may be called into question.
New ethics rules have been put into place. But the final approving authority to allow or disallow these types of donations rests with Hillary herself. I would feel much more comfortable about this if she recused herself from foreign policy decisions where a conflict might exist. This however would limit or reduce her effectiveness as Sec State. If I was the president, I never would have considered her for Sec State. Maybe something domestic like HHS (Health and Human Services.).
 
HokieMSG said:
The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation was setup by her husband. It has over the years, recieved significant donataions from foreign countries. In her role as secretary of state, she is supposed to represent the interests of the US. It can be considered a conflict of interest for her because if foreign countries continue to donate, the impression of impropriety may be inferred. The minute she supports a decision that is beneficial to a country that has donated to her husbands foundation, her motivation may be called into question.
New ethics rules have been put into place. But the final approving authority to allow or disallow these types of donations rests with Hillary herself. I would feel much more comfortable about this if she recused herself from foreign policy decisions where a conflict might exist. This however would limit or reduce her effectiveness as Sec State. If I was the president, I never would have considered her for Sec State. Maybe something domestic like HHS (Health and Human Services.).
Click to expand...
Wow, is this ever a lot of bull. This is like saying if a guy gives me money so I can give it to a friend, and then murders someone, I'm going to stick up for him at a trial. Give Hillary more credit than that.

First off, the long-term effects of the Clinton administration were felt. The 90s was very prosperous, as was the early 2000s. Even 9/11 could not slow down the economy, which turned while Bush was in office, based on the deregulated puzzle pieces his Republican Congress set into place.

Why can't we just accept what's going on and try to work our way out of the sh*thole we're in.
 
The Other Guy said:
Wow, is this ever a lot of bull. This is like saying if a guy gives me money so I can give it to a friend, and then murders someone, I'm going to stick up for him at a trial. Give Hillary more credit than that.

First off, the long-term effects of the Clinton administration were felt. The 90s was very prosperous, as was the early 2000s. Even 9/11 could not slow down the economy, which turned while Bush was in office, based on the deregulated puzzle pieces his Republican Congress set into place.

Why can't we just accept what's going on and try to work our way out of the sh*thole we're in.
Click to expand...
I don't think Bush or the republicans can really be blamed for the economic troubles of today any more than the Democrats should get credit for the boom in the 90's. The economy is cyclical. We were due a downturn. Hell for the last 20 years economists have warned that in the early 21st century when all the Baby boomers start to retire that the economy would tank. The boomers simply did not have enough kids early enough in life to pay for their retirement.
 
AeolusDallas said:
I don't think Bush or the republicans can really be blamed for the economic troubles of today any more than the Democrats should get credit for the boom in the 90's. The economy is cyclical. We were due a downturn. Hell for the last 20 years economists have warned that in the early 21st century when all the Baby boomers start to retire that the economy would tank. The boomers simply did not have enough kids early enough in life to pay for their retirement.
Click to expand...
If not having enough retirement was the problem, I could see that. But it's not.
 
The Other Guy said:
If not having enough retirement was the problem, I could see that. But it's not.
Click to expand...
The problem is not savings. its financial gridlock. Financial gridlock was exactly what economists said would happen once the baby boomers started retiring. Boomers cashing in all those ira's and a population slump in the generation folowing them.
 
AeolusDallas said:
I don't think Bush or the republicans can really be blamed for the economic troubles of today any more than the Democrats should get credit for the boom in the 90's. The economy is cyclical. We were due a downturn. Hell for the last 20 years economists have warned that in the early 21st century when all the Baby boomers start to retire that the economy would tank. The boomers simply did not have enough kids early enough in life to pay for their retirement.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------------------

The answer is YES to both. YES, the economy is cyclical, and YES by effected by outside sources.

The economy is like a river, it has its ebbs and flows, sometimes it can run fast, sometimes it runs slow. BUT you can also effect river artificially as well. You can divert it, you can dam it, etc...

In terms of the economy think the same way. For example is if you give two HUGE tax cuts to Millionaires, then run up TRILLIONS of debt, then push vast deregulation so that every dishonest SOB can milk the system dry without scrutiny, you Import for more than you Export, you buy things on credit, and then get yourself involved in not one but 2 very expensive military conflicts, all of this is going to have a direct an immediate negative effect on the economy.

HokieMSG

I don't see the relation you are drawing between what Bush did as Office as POTUS and what Bill Clinton did with his charitable foundation that was setup after he was out of office.

Nor is their a conflict of interest AS LONG AS, The Clinton Organization doesnt accept any more foreign contributions while Hillary is Sec of State. Which they said they won't. The GOP in Congress looked specifically at this issue, asked Hillary about it and confirmed her with only 2 objections. I am sure Hillary hasnt gained much popularity in the GOP, but for them not to make a fuss was because their was nothing to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top