Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 74,617
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 74,617
It is not something that will divide the Party - it is something that will grow the Party.
A Party's participation is about message, as it is about money and polls. Democrats need a message that will connect with the people. Begging for money, in order to compete with the Republicans, over the social media network, is not the way to do it. The Republican majority, in the House and Senate, has grown to dangerous and extreme numbers. Simply because they do not know how to govern. Our country is not safe in their hands. We, as a people, must get our allies to the polls.
That is why it is imperative that Democrats have an alternative voice. We need the debate - an honest debate - about the ideas which our Party stands for. Candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Sheldon Whitehouse, and others, should be encouraged to run for President. It would be the best for our Party and our country. We need rational and intelligent citizens representing us in Washington. Those that are "anti-government" are not usually very good at running our government. They are drawn to the darkside. They want to legislate their extreme minority views upon the rest of us. They are not inclined to protect our land, our water, or the air we breathe. It is time to put education, knowledge, intelligence, and science, back into good standing.
Posted by kentuck | Mon Feb 9, 2015, 05:28 PM (10 replies)
"Politics" has almost become a dirty word nowadays.
Someone once described its roots as "poli" and "tics"..."Poli" meaning many and "tics" meaning blood-sucking insects.
But at some time in our past, "politics" was not always so lightly appreciated. During Greek and Roman times, a "politician" was a person that was generally held in the highest respect.
Some believed "politicians" had a higher calling. They were men of principle who discussed means to help the greatest masses of people, by means of "government".
"Government" was not always a bad idea. Starvation, crime, and general anarchy were not the best way for our citizens to live. So they formed "governments".
So, what should we expect from this "government"? Yes, we wish to be protected from rampaging hordes? And we wish, at the least, the most basic survival needs be made available to each and every citizen. That seems to me to be the most basic of requirements from government?
And "government" created roads, streets, and lamps, and provided local police for peace in the neighborhoods. And the idea worked quite well.
What is your idea of "politics" and "politicians"?
Posted by kentuck | Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:58 PM (9 replies)
...and was waiting to get out of the Army that October.
Myself and a lot of friends went thru a lot of changes while in Vietnam. I had no questions about the war when I went in - my country called and I went.
However, I became very anti-war once I was in country. For the first time in my life, I smoked marijuana. I smoked a lot of marijuana. I studied Buddhism. I read Herman Hesse's "Siddhartha". I wore a small jade Buddha around my neck with gold holdings. I let my hair grow out. I was an unkempt soldier. I was invited to Tet dinner by a Vietnamese family, which I went. I was lucky to get out of the country alive and with a good discharge. In my three years, I changed rank nine times - from E-1 to E-2 to E-5 - to PFC to Spc4 to PFC to PVT E-1 to PVT E-2 to PFC E-3 in my three years.
I remember how a couple of "white" GI's got beat up pretty good when we got the news that MLK Jr. had been assassinated. Many whites were afraid to be out alone. I knew nothing of Eugene McCarthy, only what I read after my return and later in life. I did not know that so many young people were protesting for us back here in the States.
After my first tour was over in Sept '68, I got orders to go to Fort Lee, VA but I did not want to re-acclimate myself to the Army life again so I volunteered to go back for another tour. However, I kept my old orders for Fort Lee to show my family where I was headed when I went home on a drugged and drunken leave. They never knew that I was going back to VIetnam until I was back in the country, probably with the longest hair of any GI in Vietnam. That was a big deal in '68. I was forced to get it cut.
Ironically, when I was escorted out of the country, literally, I was sent to Fort Lee, VA to finish up my last few months in the military. I had few duties except to march in a few parades for the generals and big shots and keep the barracks clean. I do remember leaving behind in Vietnam a large poster for my friends, with "WAR?" painted on it, in blood red, and with song titles and quotes from the White Album...
For several years, it was a difficult time trying to adapt to "real" life again. I hitchhiked around the country as a way to gather myself and try to get back on the right track. Everything was so boring.
Posted by kentuck | Thu Jul 31, 2014, 09:09 PM (6 replies)
Liberals are bleeding hearts. They tend to believe the best in people.
They believe that people on food stamps need the food. They don't think they are just scamming the government.
They believe that folks getting unemployment checks would prefer a job. They don't think they are lazy and are just laying back watching their favorite TV shows.
They believe that every child should have a good lunch at school. They don't blame the parents if the child comes to school hungry.
They believe that most immigrants are looking for a better life for themselves and their families. They do not believe that they are all criminals or drug mules.
Liberals believe that government should help those in need. They do not believe that government is evil and can do nothing right.
On almost every issue that is debated, liberals give the benefit of the doubt to those that suffer or are in need. They do not vilify or criticize from a superior or unsympathetic position.
At the most basic level, this is the difference in today's political Parties. One has a heart and one does not. Words and rhetoric cannot cover up this most basic human flaw.
Posted by kentuck | Sun Jun 8, 2014, 05:55 PM (25 replies)
The Democratic Party had a chance to keep them in the fold but they blew it.
No amount of threats of Republican takeover will change the direction the Left is going. If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it. The alarm bells no longer work. The fear-mongering from the centrists will fall on deaf ears.
They have not left their Party - their Party has left them.
Most Democrats do not want to hear this and refuse to accept that it will happen. After all, anything is better than having the Republicans in total control. Well, no, it isn't .
It is worse to be deserted by your own Party. It is worse to have your ideals destroyed and replaced by Republican ideals. Winning the next election is no longer the most important thing for these beaten-down supporters of the Democratic Party.
If you think this is only a lone voice expressing dissatisfaction with the Party and , in the end, we will all unite behind Hillary to keep the White House, I think you are tragically mistaken.
The Democratic Left will either take back the Democratic Party or they will start their own Party. They will suffer no more under the illusion of being represented by the Democratic politicians in Washington.
I'm sorry I feel compelled to say this.
Posted by kentuck | Fri Dec 27, 2013, 03:47 PM (749 replies)
After reading the link by Greenwald, it is pretty obvious that he is in possession of a lot of information. And I would assume he got the information from Edward Snowden.
Obama told Charlie Rose last night:
"What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a US person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause, the same way it's always been, the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause."
The GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, told CNN that the NSA "is not listening to Americans' phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law." Talking points issued by the House GOP in defense of the NSA claimed that surveillance law only "allows the Government to acquire foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S.-persons (foreign, non-Americans) located outside the United States."
And if the NSA has not been following the guidelines set by law, then they should be held accountable. It appears that the laws may have been broken and they need to be fixed from the damage done by the Congress, rushing through legislation at the end of the year before it expires. To do something like that, with something as important as rights guaranteed by our Constitution, is unforgivable.
It seems to me that our entire government, from the top to the bottom have been delinquent in their duties? Even the President has been lax in seeing that the laws are being executed in a lawful way.
The Attorney-General gave his approval to the NSA to do more or less whatever they wanted. And they followed few guidelines. They did whatever they wanted. Make no mistake. This is lawlessness on a grand scale. This is the scandal some folks have been looking for.
But Congress cannot be forgiven for their incompetence. The Attorney-General should resign. The NSA Director, Keith Alexander, needs to step down also. Obama needs to clean house with these people. The American people cannot and will not accept such lawlessness from any government officials. The DNI position should be done away with and go back to the way it was when it worked. The intelligence is too diluted.
Finally, the Senate Intelligence Committee needs to be changed. We need some fresh thinkers with intelligence watching out for us. Those presently on that committee have lost the faith of the American people. They can keep their Senate seats if the voters want them, but they should no longer be sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
It is a mess from the top to the bottom and only one person can fix it. That would be Barack Obama. He is the only President we have at this time. This would be his true legacy if he could fix it. But he's going to have to fire some people and replace them with qualified people that see reality in the scope of history. Fortunately, the FBI Director is leaving. That would be a good place to start. This is just my humble opinion.
Posted by kentuck | Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:25 AM (34 replies)
They believe in bigger government. It has been true our entire lives.
When they say "smaller" government, they mean they want the people in general to have a "smaller" piece of the government and any benefits it may provide. At the same time, they want "bigger" government for themselves. They want a bigger military that is interventionist in nature. They want government to provide and train the soldiers so they can expand to the far reaches of the known world.
They want laws written to protect their interests and make it easier for them to make more wealth for themselves and their family of friends. They have shown little interest or compassion for the vast majority of citizens that are harmed by these laws.
They want "government" to make trade treaties with foreign nations so they can expand to countries with low wages. Then they want to bring all their products back to America to sell and make the maximum profit. That is the type of government that Republicans desire and get.
It is big government at its worst. They are not comfortable when the citizens at large decide to create a government program for themselves, whereby they donate a small percentage out of their earnings to go into an account for when they are old enough to retire. These people do not ask for much. But even that is too much for many Republicans to withstand. They say we cannot afford these entitlement programs like Social Security.
But they had no problem when they were spending the money out of the people's fund. It helped them to create more wealth for themselves and now they don't want to pay it back. There is no Social Security fund!, they yell. "We spent it!", they say.
Yes, you did. You spent it but you still owe the people that money. So long as your money is good, so is that fund. When you are in the gutter with the rest of us, then we will know that you do indeed support "smaller" government...
Posted by kentuck | Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:28 AM (6 replies)
But it is time the Republican voters in this country faced the truth.
They say they want a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. They say they want the Parties to work together. They are dishonest.
Because if they were honest, they would get rid of those Tea Partiers that have vowed to never compromise with this President on anything.
If they were honest about fiscal responsibility, they would not continue to vote for those Senators, Congressmen, and Presidential candidates that sign a pledge to never raise taxes for any purpose. Just yesterday, their candidate for President said he was going to increase spending on our military, some estimate as much as $2 trillion dollars. Not only that, he has hinted that he would go to war with Iran. How would we pay for this?
Also, he has said that he would cut tax rates across the board by 20%, even for the very top. Top economic experts say that would cost us $5 trillion dollars. On top of that, they want to continue the Bush taxcuts. How would we pay for this if every Republican in Washington has signed a pledge to never raise taxes?
It's time to ask for a little honesty from the Republican voters of this country. We cannot survive with such dishonesty from so many people. To their credit, the Democratic Party has never signed a pledge to never make any cuts or never to raise any taxes.
The Obama campaign should not only be taking Mitt Romney to task, but they should be taking to task the dishonest Republican voters also. They cannot handle the truth but it must be told. They are the reason we do not have a balanced budget. Their continuing votes for those folks that sign pledges is the main reason we have such fiscal irresponsibility.
Posted by kentuck | Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:57 AM (4 replies)
Unfortunately for them, the truth has a liberal bias.
Most news organizations are owned by some large corporation. Therefore, the reporters for these large news organizations are prohibited from telling the truth if it affects the corporation that owns them. For example, tax breaks that are favorable to their owner are seldom reported on at all and, it they are, they are reported inaccurately.
But, it is not just taxes - it is any story that might affect the owner corporation. Their reporters know, without having to be told, that they are not permitted to cross a certain line. This is with all the major news outlets that we watch on television, including MSNBC, owned by General Electric and Comcast.
They are biased toward the wealthy, toward corporations, toward the military, toward tax policies, toward "free trade", against social spending, against anything that might cost their corporation more money, etc....
Any non-sense that comes from the Republican Party, the Establishment Party, is assumed to be credible and anything that comes from the Democratic Party is assumed to be questionable? The media is the biggest obstacle to making any progress in this country at this time...
Posted by kentuck | Mon Apr 30, 2012, 07:19 PM (6 replies)
Most Republicans truly believe that the economy should be much stronger right now and the reason it is not stronger is because of the policies of Barack Hussein Obama.
They assume the last recession, when Bush left office, was no different from any other recession. They assume we should be in full recovery.
Either they do not believe the economy was as bad as everyone else in the world thought it was in 2009 or they have conveniently forgotten? The capitalist system was not about to collapse. The banks should have been permitted to go under. We would have a flourishing economy if we had permitted the market to work. We would be in much better shape today if we had not saved the auto industry from going under. The unemployment rate would not be as high as it is now under Barack Obama if we had not spent so much money on these bailouts. I do not doubt but that they truly believe this.
Either they have forgotten that we were losing 750,000 jobs per month when Barack Obama took office or they simply believe that Republicans would have instantly taken that number to zero? They assume the recession was no big deal. There was no reason to believe it was any worse than any other recession. If only the people had kept them in charge, our country would be in a much better condition today.
I do not question their sincerity. I question their sanity.
Posted by kentuck | Thu Apr 26, 2012, 11:03 AM (14 replies)