PoliticsWelcome to Slider's Dugout

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (25187)12/25/2011 5:30:32 PM
4 Recommendations   of 28646
Dick Morris is the kind of guy who dislikes Ron Paul. Once again, that, for me, proves that Ron Paul is on the RIGHT track! The bankster-owned candidates, Newt and Mitt, and Obama, all want a police state and all want HUGE federal government! Wake up America! The country is going bankrupt!

Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. -- ALL OWNED by the .01% and all paid millions and millions to toe the bankster line! How blind are the sheeple?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: SOROS who wrote (25248)12/26/2011 12:29:14 AM
From: Still Rolling
1 Recommendation   of 28646
Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Government And Big Business In Venn Diagrams

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (25208)12/26/2011 12:28:09 PM
From: No Mo Mo
6 Recommendations   of 28646
I've been thinking about this issue of racism and Ron Paul. I honestly don't know enough about his history to conclude whether or not these letters are deal breakers. We'll see.

What I do know is that the US has been killing and opressing brown and yellow people for my entire life. My tax dollars have been supporting an unrestrained killing spree for the past ten years in the Middle east alone.

Which candidate seems least likely to continue that pattern?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: SOROS who wrote (25244)12/26/2011 1:03:44 PM
From: Knighty Tin
2 Recommendations   of 28646
Racism is more important to some than others. My point is that Paul is a very flawed candidate. In some eyes, he may be less flawed than the others. Voting for him is one thing. But several on this thread are close to canonizing the guy. His Neo-Confederate ties, which continue today and are not 20 year old errors, have always bothered me. His attacks on the Fed and the banksters have always had me rooting for him. His anti war stance is refreshing.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (25250)12/26/2011 1:13:29 PM
From: Knighty Tin
2 Recommendations   of 28646
Definitely Ron Paul. Or Ralph Nader, who's too long in the tooth now.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: SARMAN who wrote (25221)12/27/2011 11:31:41 AM
From: Joe S Pack
6 Recommendations   of 28646
As long as that robot Knightly takes his command from CNN and Faux news there is no need to answer. He is in his overdrive and he is scared of some truth and something good for the country and it citizens - ordinary Americans.
He will try his best to tar Ron Paul. that is all he has.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Nihontochicken12/27/2011 1:55:03 PM
8 Recommendations   of 28646
The Big Lie - Wall Street has destroyed the wonder that was America - Michael Thomas

Link below to a good read (ht to Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism, her comment, "For those of you who had the misfortune never to see Thomas’ columns in The Observer, this old-school banker (a former Lehman partner from the Bobbie Lehman era, meaning before Lew Glucksman and Dick Fuld) can rise to levels of invective your humble blogger has yet to master."):

Some excerpts:

Sixty years ago, if you had asked me, on the basis of all that I had been taught, whether I thought this condition of general rot was possible in this country, I would have told you that you were nuts. And I would have been very wrong. What has happened in this country has made a lie of my boyhood.

At the end of the day, the convulsion to come won’t really be about Wall Street’s derivatives malefactions, or its subprime fun and games, or rogue trading, or the folly of banks. It will be about this society’s final opportunity to rip away the paralyzing shackles of corruption or else dwell forever in a neofeudal social order. You might say that 1384 has replaced 1984 as our worst-case scenario.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: roguedolphin12/27/2011 9:23:31 PM
4 Recommendations   of 28646


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Martin Niemoeller
By Foster Gamble

What is keeping us from thriving? After a lifetime journey of pursuing that question, my research revealed that a small group of financial elite have gained control over key areas of our lives – energy, food, health care, education and more – and are the single greatest threat to humanity’s ability to thrive...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (25252)12/28/2011 12:05:28 AM
From: No Mo Mo
4 Recommendations   of 28646
Here's an interesting look at Paul and the charges of racism from Counterpunch. The author takes a hard look at the racist allegations and agrees, they're odious. He's goes on to give Paul some measure of benefit of doubt as long as Paul disavows racist views.

Message 27847394

More important are a few "big issues." In this guy's opinion, Paul wins on those. At this point, I agree. It would be nice for once to fight a politician based on disagreement about policy rather than punching at shadows and spiderwebs spun by press secretaries and handlers.


"That said, sometimes it all comes down to a couple of big issues, and in the unlikely chance that the election next November were to end up being the choice between Barack Obama and Ron Paul
(and assuming no emergence of a viable Third Party progressive candidate like Rocky Anderson and his Justice Party), while I might have a hard time pulling the lever for Paul unless he can really make it clear he has no truck with White Supremecists and their ilk, it would be easier than pulling a lever for Obama.

Why? Because with President Obama we would get more war, increased military spending, and at the rate he’s been going stripping away our Constitutional rights, there wouldn’t be any of those after another four years. We would also be electing someone who we now know lies through his teeth, who takes money from some of the biggest corporate thieves in human history, and who has appointed some of those very criminals to most or all of the key economic policy positions in his administration.

With Ron Paul as president, at least we’d be done with all the wars, the people of the rest of the world would be finally free of US military interference, including attacks by US drones. The long-suffering Constitution and its Bill of Rights would mean something again. We might even get a Supreme Court justice or two who actually believed that Congress should declare any future wars before we could fight them, and that citizens who were arrested had an absolute right to a speedy trial by a jury of peers. And we’d be electing someone who appears, especially for a politician, to be that rare thing: an honest man who says what he means and means what he says — and who doesn’t seem to be owned by the banksters.

We’d have a hell of a fight on our hands in a Ron Paul presidency, defending Social Security and Medicare, promoting economic equality, fighting climate change and pollution, defending abortion rights and maybe fighting a resurgence of Jim Crow in some parts of the country, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about being spied upon, beaten and arrested and then perhaps shipped off to Guantanamo for doing it."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (25162)12/28/2011 12:46:15 AM
From: SliderOnTheBlack
8 Recommendations   of 28646
How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a country their fathers had built for them?

Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables. Among the more famous
of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The Tortoise and the Hare."

Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas lately, is Aesop's fable of
"The Dog in the Manger."

The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When the ox, who has worked
all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him
from his manger.

The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to deny a fellow creature what you
yourself do not want and cannot even enjoy.

What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters, whose numbers have grown
since the days when it was only the village atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.

The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas and what it represents,
but that they must do their best, or worst, to ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and
holy day they love.

As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian bigots is growing,
and their malevolence is out of the closet:

"In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross. ... In Santa Monica, atheists
were granted 18 of 21 plots in a public park allotted for holiday displays and ... erected signs
mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors, 'Religion is but myth and
superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube
shows denizens of Occupy D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate
a small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."

People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of the First Amendment,
exercising their right of free speech to maintain a separation of church and state.

They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are
doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they
are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day
of their calendar year?

Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.

It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe
to be the Son of God and their Savior who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open
the gates of heaven.

Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three
in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?

This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the character of those who engage in it,
it says something as well about who is winning the culture war for the soul of America.

Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents -- Woodrow Wilson,
Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter -- all declared America to be a "Christian nation."

They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America's national religion --
indeed, that was ruled out in the Constitution -- but that we were predominantly a Christian people.

And so we were born.

Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic, with a few thousands Jews.
The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850 brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America.
The Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans,
mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent of all Americans described themselves as Christians.

And here one must pose a question.

How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a country their fathers had built for them?

How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian prayers, pageants, holidays and holy
days been purged from all government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken over those
schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways that would be declared hate crimes were it done
to other religious faiths or ethnic minorities?

Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity, that Christians allowed themselves to be
robbed of their inheritance to a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we
Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?

What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority, saying to Christians with their mockery
and ridicule of the celebration of the birth of Christ?

"This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."

The question for Christians is a simple one:

Do they have what it takes to take America back?

Do you?



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.