HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Triana » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 20,571

Journal Archives

The Moral of the Story (my response to a liberal-hating conservative about 9/11 & torture)

Mr. Conservative said:


Liberals sicken me.

On 9/11, people lined up for blocks to donate blood to help the victims of the terrorists. The victims never came as they were all crushed to bits or incinerated. The smell from the fires at ground zero lingered in the air and subway tunnels for weeks after the attacks. I recall being on the E train the week after the attack and realizing no one was talking.... was odd. The silence was eery & deafening. Missing persons posters hung everywhere.... there was a real sadness in the city. Week after week of funeral processions on 5th Ave for the firefighters & police killed trying to help those trapped. Trapped by islamic animals bent on destroying the US using any & all means possible.

F*ck them all....... Torture (loud music and no sleep) is too good for them. They should have all been put to death... slowly and publicly.... just like the muslim assholes do when beheading innocents today.

Liberals scare me. You seem all too eager to play by the rules when your enemy has no rules whatsoever. Might as well walk into battle with your arms high in the air waving a white flag. Actually, no. Liberals run & hide from battle..... Weakness is your most abundant trait.

My response (which I doubt he will fully read and will likely pass off as "librul propaganda"):

It isn't about 'rules'. It's about a thoughtful, intelligent, measured response that won't perpetuate terrorism and hatred and make things worse, fomenting more violence and hate. It takes restraint and intellect to do that. And that -- takes STRENGTH. Intellectual, moral strength. Not the biceps and guns and tanks kind. It's about not buying into all the propaganda about 'mushroom clouds' and the various profiteer's admonishments and fear-mongering to rush to war. It's about waiting to find out more facts and basing responses on actual intelligence (which in this case was there before the attacks but were inexplicably ignored). It's a different response than going into a full on occupation with guns-a-blazing, torture prisons awaiting to slam anyone in there we can get just to show how macho we are and to make ourselves feel better (and to make lots of dough for our oil businesses and military industrial complex buddies bytheway).

This isn't about "liberals" (though we know you hate them) and intellectualism in general. It's about the immorality of deceiving a nation into war based on false pretenses in order to gain profit, power, revenge, and control. It's about certain important facts that far too many people find it convenient to ignore - maybe because it gives them an easy platform upon which to stand to justify their hatred of "liberals" - or any other whole groups of people. It's about what's wise and unwise in regards to how to respond to terrorist attacks (that is "respond" NOT "react" - there's a difference). It's about morality. OURS. Not theirs.

The Bush admin ignored multiple direct warnings about al Queda. Some people would like to ignore that fact. I won't.

His administration knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet they fired up their propaganda machinery to sell an invasion there to the American people. Yellow cake. Mushroom clouds. Claims of meetings that never occurred. The whole crock of bullshit. No WMD there. Even Bush himself joked about it later. And, later " target="_blank">he stated that he didn't know where bin Laden was and didn't care.

I should point out that it was BARACK OBAMA who hunted down and killed bin Laden. With no invasion or occupation of Pakistan. Without torturing anyone to find him. And without killing anyone else other than him. And without lies and false pretenses. If Obama was white and Republican, conservatives would have been (and would still be) singing his praises to the high heavens forevermore. But -- he's not.

So, Bush not giving a damn about bin Laden after he allegedly masterminded 9/11 is fabulous in their eyes. Obama on the other hand -- after finally getting bin Laden after Bush failed and after Bush tortured a bunch of people in Iraq needlessly under the guise of "war on terror" -- Obama is a failure (at least in the eyes of conservatives).

Very interesting.

It was learned that Bush/Cheney planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. That's interesting too. Here's the money quote about that:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed." They lied to the American people. Halliburton, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the oil companies benefited handsomely from this invasion and subsequent decade-long occupation.

Here's something too makes this even more despicable than it already is - insiders (Colin Powell's chief of staff for instance, along with others) have said the most extreme waterboarding and torture wasn't done to pre-empt another attack on America, but rather because Bush and Cheney wanted to extract confessions or info (false or not) to so they could claim there was a link between Iraq and al Queda - to justify their invasion and occupation of Iraq - which as I mentioned they evidently had planned at the beginning of Bush's first term well before 9/11.

Gordon Trowbridge writes for the Detroit News: “Senior Bush administration officials pushed for the use of abusive interrogations of terrorism detainees in part to seek evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq, according to newly declassified information discovered in a congressional probe.

That congressional probe was the Senate Armed Services Committee report from 2009. More about that:

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

If that's not despicable enough or incriminating enough, Senator Carl Levin recently explained that the torture techniques used in the Iraq prisons were the same ones used by the Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean war for the express purpose of eliciting FALSE CONFESSIONS to be used as propaganda. This appears to be the same reason the Bush Administration was using these techniques, doesn't it? Also very interesting.

So once they found (or let happen) their convenient excuse for invading and occupying Iraq, they tortured innocent people (including sodomizing children in front of their mothers to try to extract information from the parents) in the some of the same prisons Sadaam Hussein used and in the same as well as worse ways. I can't justify that. I don't care who attacked us or how. It's a moral issue.

Every second of suffering. Every drop of blood spilled is on their hands. On America's hands. Every. One. And its about time we owned up to it as a nation.

Anyone can huff and puff and beat their chest and drag their knuckles and drag themselves down to behave just like the terrorists themselves (or worse). They can hate Muslims and hate "liberals" and whoever else and declare that any form of torture is too good for the lot of them. It doesn't take any skill to do that. Or much intelligence. Or any more morals than the terrorists have.

Torturing people doesn't result in reliable intelligence from prisoners. Simply because a prisoner will do or say ANYTHING to make the pain stop. You know you would. And as I mentioned, there are some accounts that say the administration wasn't even looking for reliable intelligence - just something they could use as propaganda to tie bin Laden to Hussein to justify the invasion.

But if you're really looking to catch the bad guys (not just something to use for propaganda), torture still is not necessary to gain good intelligence to capture terrorists. See my previous mention of Barack Obama's capture of bin Laden. No torture was necessary. That's what you call "leading by example". That's how it's done. I know you hate that. I know you hate giving a black Democrat president credit for anything at all, much less something as important as capturing a terrorist mastermind who allegedly orchestrated attacks on America. But Barack Obama did that. Without torture. And without invading and occupying another country - under false pretenses or otherwise.

Acting like terrorists ourselves by torturing people is at best counterproductive. It is at worst a mechanism which only serves to exacerbate, propagate and perpetuate the problem (though it might make YOU feel better). One Republican who has himself been subjected to torture agrees with that sentiment - John McCain - he's got first-hand experience with having been tortured.

How does America being a terrorist state (and it was at that time in many people's estimation) perpetuate terrorism? Well, here's an example:

Here is what the leader of ISIS said about its current existence: "If there was no US prison in Iraq, there would be no ISIS. The prison was a factory. It made us”

. . . Abu Ahmed recalled. They had also been terrified of Bucca, but quickly realised that far from their worst fears, the US-run prison provided an extraordinary opportunity. “We could never have all got together like this in Baghdad, or anywhere else,” he told me. “It would have been impossibly dangerous. Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred metres away from the entire al-Qaida leadership.”

It was at Camp Bucca that Abu Ahmed first met Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of Isis who is now frequently described as the world’s most dangerous terrorist leader. From the beginning, Abu Ahmed said, others in the camp seemed to defer to him. “Even then, he was Abu Bakr. But none of us knew he would ever end up as leader.”

. . .

According to Hisham al-Hashimi, the Baghdad-based analyst, the Iraqi government estimates that 17 of the 25 most important Islamic State leaders running the war in Iraq and Syria spent time in US prisons between 2004 and 2011. Some were transferred from American custody to Iraqi prisons, where a series of jailbreaks in the last several years allowed many senior leaders to escape and rejoin the insurgent ranks.

Abu Ghraib was the scene of the biggest – and most damaging – breakout in 2013, with up to 500 inmates, many of them senior jihadists handed over by the departing US military, fleeing in July of that year after the prison was stormed by Islamic State forces, who launched a simultaneous, and equally successful, raid on nearby Taji prison.

Iraq’s government closed Abu Ghraib in April 2014 and it now stands empty, 15 miles from Baghdad’s western outskirts, near the frontline between Isis and Iraq’s security forces, who seem perennially under-prepared as they stare into the heat haze shimmering over the highway that leads towards the badlands of Falluja and Ramadi.

Parts of both cities have become a no-go zone for Iraq’s beleaguered troops, who have been battered and humiliated by Isis, a group of marauders unparalleled in Mesopotamia since the time of the Mongols. When I visited the abandoned prison late this summer, a group of disinterested Iraqi forces sat at a checkpoint on the main road to Baghdad, eating watermelon as the distant rumble of shellfire sounded in the distance. The imposing walls of Abu Ghraib were behind them, and their jihadist enemies were staked out further down the road.

The revelation of abuses at Abu Ghraib had a radicalising effect on many Iraqis, who saw the purported civility of American occupation as little improvement on the tyranny of Saddam.



_ _ _ _ _

And in regards to ISIS, there is another piece of relevant information that the media and those who support the Bush regime like to ignore (they inexplicably blame Obama instead, for the fact that ISIS exists - but the fact is Obama has little to do with it):

How the Top Iraqi Terrorist Was Helped by a Bush-Signed Agreement

With the crisis in Iraq intensifying, conservative media outlets have searched for a fall guy and found one: President Barack Obama. In recent days, conservative websites have peddled the claim that it was Obama who freed the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Al Qaeda-inspired Islamic militant group currently overrunning cities in northern Iraq and threatening Baghdad. Referring to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who heads ISIS, the Daily Mail asserts, "Obama SET FREE the merciless terrorist warlord now leading the ISIS horde blazing a trail of destruction through Iraq." Right-wing author David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine claims Baghdadi, who was once held by US forces in Iraq, was released "on Obama's watch." And RedState.com says Baghdadi was let go under the Obama administration's "policy of releasing terrorists." But they have it wrong: It was an agreement signed by President George W. Bush in 2008 that led to Baghdadi's release in 2009.

In 2005, US military forces captured Baghdadi. (There are not many public details about his capture or his role then in the ongoing insurgency.) He was held in a US-run detention camp in southern Iraq called Camp Bucca, where he remained for several years.

In 2008, while reducing the numbers of US troops in the country, Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government that mandated that all detainees be handed over to Iraqi forces. In accordance with this agreement, Baghdadi was transferred to Iraqi custody in 2009, and by 2010, the Iraqi government (for a reason not explained publicly) had set him free. That same year, Baghdadi assumed leadership of ISIS. He has since been dubbed "the new bin Laden."

It's not as if Bush could have prevented Baghdadi's release by maintaining control over detainees—in part because his administration had so screwed up on this front. (See Abu Ghraib.) At the time, "the United States' detainee programs had become a black eye," says Patrick Johnston, an expert on Iraqi insurgent groups at the RAND Corporation. US-run detention facilities were overcrowded; some prisoners were tortured. Continuing a large US-controlled detainee program "was a political nonstarter," he adds.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Getting all pissed off and invading another country and torturing the shit out of people in various prisons there might make chest-beaters feel better. Because they're mad. And they're going to have their revenge on that damn terrorist scum. But is it the best and wisest thing to do in order to stop terrorist activity or in response to attacks? Participating in terrorism stops it? It looks to me like it just perpetuates it. So when does it stop? Really. When? Because what's been tried so far isn't working. The torture carried out by Bush did more harm to America than good. And it did more harm to America than the damn terrorists did. It hasn't worked. What it's done is give us new terrorists to deal with - like ISIS. And it's made us war criminals. And terrorists - in the eyes of much of the rest of the world (regardless how John Yoo contorted laws to make it "legal").

Oh but it's OK when America does it. Right?

So those are a few things for you nosh on as you clench your fists and grit your teeth about about "liberals" whom we all know you hate. Here's the thing: I welcome your hatred. Because I know it will hurt you more than it will ever hurt me. Come to think of it, that's actually the moral of this entire response.

There isn't a hair's difference between the misogynist attitudes of Elliot Rodger and Republicans

There isn't a hair's difference between the misogynist attitudes of Elliot Rodger and those of Republicans. I watched his video. I read his manifesto. ALL 141 pages of it.

His belief about women was that they should be enslaved. Tortured. Killed. That the patriarchy/some man or men should have complete control and dominion over women and that women should have NO choices about whom or whether they have sex or with whom or when, or whether or when they reproduce -- that men should decide FOR them.

Look at the legislation these conservative bastards have been passing all over the country.

That's EXACTLY what it seeks to do- control women and deprive them of any choice about their sexuality or reproduction. Same as Elliot Rodger said he felt women should be treated.

I'm reminded too of that all-male panel that met in chambers to discuss whether women ought to be allowed birth control under the ACA. NO WOMEN were allowed on the panel. One did ask. She was told she was "not qualified".

These attitudes - from high school and college campuses all the way to the highest levels of state and federal government, form the societal basis of our insidious rape culture in the U.S.

What we saw in Elliot Rodger, IMO, is a disturbed young man who was additionally infected by what are essentially the roots of modern patriarchy/misogyny in our country today. And what did it result in? A murder spree based in vile, otherwise insatiable hatred of and need to control women.

Everything he wrote about reflects what the GOP/Republicans say and do in regards to women.

Some of it sounded to me just like some of our conservative politicians ie: "she should put an aspirin between her legs" and "abortion Barbie" and "legitimate rape" and that rape is "just another form of conception" - and their insidious and never-ending mantra about how women should have NO choice about who has sex with them, or when or how -- or about how or if or when they reproduce. THEY ARE ADVOCATING SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY.



Elliot Rodger.

The psychopathic murderer. That's right. That's RIGHT.

I think there were three factors which resulted in this gruesome massacre - not necessarily in this order:

1. mental illness
2. easy availability of guns, even for someone who has long since been formally diagnosed with mental illness and whose own family notified police that he may become violent.
3. Insidious misogynist conservative attitudes about women from MRA sites he visited combined with an American society which largely supports those attitudes - from the HIGHEST governmental levels and the inherent sense of male entitlement that goes along with it, as well as the idea that women are anything BUT human and are only here to serve male sexual and reproductive needs.

What the hell should we expect to happen? WHAT?

The War on Women has manifested itself once again in gruesome terms (once again) and I'm sure we'll all still be told it "doesn't exist" -- that there "is no war on women" and that we're "just imagining things"


BULL SHIT. What Elliot Rodger wrote, said, and did was not "imaginary". The insidious influence of male entitlement/MRA/patriarchal/misogynist culture that helped push him over that edge is not "imaginary". IT IS REAL.

What we saw from the websites and message boards Elliot visited and participated in (and what we see from any of these MRA groups) is the modern ROOTS of this war on women. Elliot Rodger himself EVEN. CALLED. IT. THAT. See page 132 of his "manifesto".

These patriarchal roots have pushed themselves deep into the history of a society whose women have repeatedly been told this war doesn't exist.

But that's not true. It DOES exist. We just saw prime evidence of it in Elliot Rodger. THERE it is in all of its hateful, controlling, murderous glory. THERE. IT. IS.

And women are still suffering and dying in that war at the hands of angry and controlling men. And yes I know he killed some males too. But it was because he wanted to control the women and felt entitled to them -- because he was jealous of the males because they possessed women and HE did not. To him, women were property - devices to provide sexual gratification and to be used for breeding. To Republicans, it's the same.

We need to deal with the issue of mental illness.
We need to deal with the issue of insidious gun culture and the fact that guns are easily available to anyone - no matter how deranged or mentally unstable they are.
We need to deal with our insidiously misogynist society and our misogynist government.

Otherwise - this is going to happen again. And again. And again. Count on it.

© Seven Bowie


The arguments I'm getting on Twitter are a lot of "absurd!", and "you're stupid!", and "you have daddy problems!" and "well his parents were liberals and he watched Young Turks!"

The first three are commentary from those conservatives who've lost the argument already and thus turned to that good old standby: personal insults and name-calling. I won't waste my time on those.

The last one I will address:

Elliot Rodger's parents may have been Democrats. And he may have watched "The Young Turks". However he likely didn't pick up his sexist attitudes from them. Or from "liberal" TV programs.

Elliot Rodger was known to have frequented PUA and MRA websites full of self-entitled angry males (of whom he was one) who demanded sex from and sexual control over women and who viewed women as property put on Earth to satisfy their sexual desires on demand, not human beings with self-determination.

Those sites - full of controlling men (the type whom the GOP caters to) is where he likely obtained his worst, most dangerous attitudes about women. What were those attitudes? Elliot Rodger wrote about controlling women, taking their reproductive choices away, forcing them to breed. These are Conservative attitudes. His "manifesto" could have been written by some of the GOP whackos who talk about "rape being another form of conception"

I see the ire of some conservatives has been raised due to my making that point. That tells me there is substance to it.

My advice to conservatives who dislike that their Representatives' anti-choice rhetoric sounds like Elliot Rodger is to stop trying to control women -- and stop supporting idiot politicians who insist on controlling women's sexuality and taking away their reproductive choices. It might help to learn that women are HUMAN. Not breeding cows for you to own and control and to rape and impregnate at will, and to force pregnancy or sex upon.

The Rape of a Nation

What inspired this 'rant' was this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023749863

Endless propaganda and rhetoric from the extremist wing of the GOP (The "Tea Party"); the same phrases and emotion-hooking memes formulated by psychologists in PR firms to bypass the brain and reasoning processes and go straight to the emotions to instill fear and hatred instead, are not new. The damned "Tea Party" isn't new. And no, I'm not referring to the actual one, the first one, from 1773. I'm referring to what used to be called "The John Birch Society" and which is now called (ironically, if you know the purpose of the one in 1773), the "Tea Party". The modern "Tea Party" purpose is the exact opposite of the original one, turning the entire historical context upside down to suit the Ayn Randian greed and self-servitude of the wealthy bastards behind the more recent one.

Yes, it's all the old "communist, socialist" rhetoric from the damn John Birchers, who USED to be considered a radical fringe and in fact still ARE a radical fringe. After the first time America rejected their bullshit, they managed to go underground, rally their wealthy allies and founders (Kochs, Adelsons, Petersons, Murdochs and others, along with big corprats and Wall St.) and BUY a lot of government and media control for themselves and get laws written in way that allow them to bombard the public day & night with their "specially formulated" propaganda using the media they control and to do so without any limitations at all. (thanks to some of their friends on the US Supreme Court - right, Mr. Thomas?).

So now they've returned with this new apparatus calling themselves the "Tea Party" and they're running the show even though they're hardly a majority, ramming their dangerous extremism up the ass and down the throats of every American (and in the case of women, up their vaginas) whether they like it or not. Especially the elderly, poor, students, and women.

It's the rape of our Democracy.

JBS was soundly rejected by the American public before. And America needs to reject them and their dangerous, ignorant extremism and its attendant rhetoric again now, too. Ronnie RayGun was one of their first tools. The more recent ones are even more clownish and ignorant (Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, (p)Rick Perry, Art Pope, Todd Akin et al).

This nation needs to ram something up the "Tea Party"'s collective ass: A BIG BLUE phallis that says "NO!" once again to their dangerous, ignorant, hateful, greed-driven agenda being foisted on all of us by this frankly evil minority, which is hellbent on destroying the United States and the world if need be, in order to garner all the money and power for its dangerous, deluded self. Because you know that is NOT a Democracy. It's thievery and yes - the rape of a nation.

And after that, our nation needs to regain control of its government, its media, and its election system - put our collective boots on the necks of the teabag contingent and keep them there. It's OUR country. Not theirs. WE. ARE. THE. MAJORITY.

Sorry if the "rape" analogy is upsetting to some. If the moniker fits (and it does), then I'mma use it. As the minority, they are FORCING themselves and their twisted, ignorant ideologies onto everyone else this country. No other word for it.

I'm sure the post will be hidden or whatever is deemed necessary or requested by other members and that's fine.

I don't care what they want to call it...

...bombing Syria as a "punishment" as if the US is some goddamned worldwide moral compass everyone else has to synchronize to or as if the US is some kind of goddamned worldwide policeman or babysitter is just as offensive.

SURE what happened in Syria was bad. But GODDAMN we've done as bad or worse to our own people HERE! Instead of gassing them, we STARVE them to death. We take away their jobs, refuse to pay them livable wages when they do have jobs, take away their unemployment when they can't find any more jobs and we withhold or deny them needed healthcare. We have income inequality that is WORSE THAN IT'S EVER BEEN IN HISTORY. Our social and economic condition is a tinderbox and is UNSUSTAINABLE as it stands and cannot continue.

We stood by while Saddam "gassed his own people" and we fucking HELPED him do it! And we went behind him and gassed MORE of his people ourselves. And this government is SERIOUSLY considering bombing another country for "gassing" people? SERIOUSLY? OH. MY. GOD. the HYPOCRISY of this is just STUNNING.


WHAT. MORAL. COMPASS. does the United States have right now in light of all this to bomb Syria? What good is that going to do? How are we going to pay for it? And WHY should we?

If we fucking can't afford Social Security and Medicare, if we fucking let war criminals off scot-free and act like war criminals ourselves, if we fucking cannot manage to put gambling banksters who brought the world's economy TO. ITS. KNEES. just 5 years ago from which we STILL have not recovered, if we fucking give unfettered license to the likes of Wall St., the Koch Brothers and ALEC to BUY our government, suppress our votes, refuse to pay taxes, control our media and DESTROY our economy and our natural environment -- then we CANNOT. AFFORD. TO. BOMB. SYRIA.



Just a few months ago, an asshole with an assault weapon went into an elementary school and MURDERED 20 little kids and what did our country DO about that? NOTHING. NOT. A. THING. Did we change or strengthen gun laws? NO. Did we outlaw assault weapons or high-capacity magazines? NO. WE. DID. NOTHING. Because the goddamned NRA controls our Congress. NINETY PERCENT or more of Americans wanted tougher gun laws. What did we GET? NOTHING. Because we have a pantywaist ninny Congress which is OWNED and CONTROLLED by gangsters.

Fuck Syria.

We have ISSUES of our own at home we need to deal with FIRST before we have ANY business "punishing" any other international "criminals" -- when the hell are we going to punish our own national ones? If we can't do that, we have no business sticking our noses into what any others do anywhere else.

This is BULLSHIT. The United States is NOT any kind of Moral International Church Lady that has ANY MORAL standing to do any of this. Not one iota!

GOD DAMN this fucking arrogant, hypocritical, criminal, immoral country! THIS ONE. RIGHT HERE. Not Syria. Not Iraq. THIS ONE.

The American Taliban has stirred up a HORNET'S NEST of Democracy in These United States

TX Tealiban Leader Dewhurst blamed the loss in passing SB5 on: “an unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics"

( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/texas-abortion-bill-appears-to-win-final-approval.html?_r=1& )

I have a message for Mr. Dewhurst:

That was not "Occupy Wall Street" tactics.


And you better get used to it because you all American Taliban have stirred up a HORNET'S NEST of Democracy in this country and you're going to be seeing a lot more of it. THE PEOPLE who make up this nation are not going to stand idly by while you do the bidding of moneyed interests and religious extremists - while you attempt to suppress their vote, shove ALEC model bills that they did not have any voice in crafting down their throats, while you ignore their voices in favor of the Koch Brothers and their rich corporate friends on Wall St., while you protect big business interests and profits at the expense of the middle-class and the poor -- and MOST OF ALL -- while you continue to OPPRESS women in this country and deny them their rights to health care!

Nope. That LEGISLATIVE building all you pampered politicians work in BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. Their hard-earned tax dollars and labor BUILT that building - all of the legislative buildings in this country. They have EVERY RIGHT to assemble there at any time to TELL YOU in any peaceful way that YOU are not doing your job -- when YOU are not representing them.

And ya know what else, Dewhurst and all you other American Taliban leaders? --- No matter what rich white man or corprat interest bought your way into that office you enjoy -- WE THE PEOPLE PAY YOUR SALARIES.

Let me repeat that: No matter what rich white man bought you or what corporation paid your way into office with unlimited spending on attack ads on your behalf -- YOU. WORK. FOR. US. WE pay your salaries. And YOU are occupying OUR house.

And if you aren't doing your job, you ARE going to hear about it. In NO uncertain terms.

THAT is what Democracy looks like.

In these United States, people have DIED for Democracy.

They have rioted. They have sat on buses. They have marched. And they have DIED for it. And been murdered for it. They had DREAMS about it. And they FOUGHT to the death for that dream.

And they'll do it again.

So Mr. American Taliban leader, you had just better get used to these "Occupy Wall St tactics", as you call them, because that's WHAT. DEMOCRACY. LOOKS. LIKE.


When WE THE PEOPLE STAND UP and REFUSE to let you take our rights and our voices away, WE. WIN. and the thieves LOSE.


Get used to it, Bucko. You Goddamned, LYING, CHEATING bastards.


Open letter to Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court

Open letter to the United States Congress, the United States Senate and the United States Supreme Court in regards to yesterday's Senate vote against expanding background checks for gun purchases.

You cannot justify this vote. There is no moral justification for it. You cannot defend the indefensible. It is clear now who you work for. It is clear that you do not work for the American People, none of you. Even when they are senselessly murdered in cold blood you will not defend them when a moneyed interest doesn't want to lose profits.

Tell me: What in God's name is worth more than money in this country?

Anything? I guess not.

You can stop with your little charade pretending like you represent justice or "we the people" or "life". You do not. You work for the very wealthy. You work for the military-industrial complex, big insurance, big tobacco, big pharma, big insurance, big gun manufacturers, the prison industrial complex, Wall St and big banks, big oil, etc. They moneyed and the corporate. No one else. No matter what.

You have turned our government into what is called "inverted totalitarianism". It's not a Democracy or a Republic or anything that can be called 'representative' government. It is a dictatorial regime with a government that is no more than a group of puppets controlled by big corporations and their lobbyists and their money. And you just proved it. AGAIN.

You can google that term "inverted totalitarianism". Everyone should become familiar with it. Because this is the form of government the United States has now.
You're not fooling anyone anymore in Washington, none of you - Democrat or Republican. So stop trying. We've seen who you're there for and we know it's not US (we the people), so just stop with the pretense. It's transparent and the pretense has become contrived and ridiculous-looking to both the American people and to the world.

Senator Harry Reid CAN and SHOULD fix the Senate rules so that majority votes get legislation PASSED. And so that a person wanting to filibuster must do that job and MUST be present and TALKING for the full duration of said filibuster.

That vote was as morally bankrupt as anything could be. But Senator Reid doesn't want to fix the Senate. Because Democratic Senators need something to hide behind as they do the exclusive bidding of gun manufacturers, NRA and other big corporate interests - instead of the people.

How convenient.

I want the lot of you to know that we all see right through your ruse. We know who you are up there for. And we know it's NOT US. There is no doubt about that anymore. There is only one word that can describe you now:


Good Day.

© 2013 Seven Bowie

LINK: http://www.sevenbowie.com/2013/04/open-letter-to-congress-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court/

Social Security belongs to the American people. It is not Obama's to bargain with.

I voted for Barack Obama twice, however I can no longer defend him since he is advocating unfair and unnecessary cuts to Social Security.

President Obama OWES the American people a clear explanation:

• WHY he is choosing to advocate for cutting SS after repeatedly promising not to?

• WHY he is buying into the debt/deficit propaganda and the austerity bullshit when it's clear that austerity has not worked anywhere else in the world and when virtually EVERY economist says it's JOBS that ought be priority #1 for fixing the economy, NOT cuts!

• WHY he is insisting in coupling the need to "do something" about SS with talks about the deficit, when SS has not added ONE CENT to the deficit. Talks about any "fixes" to SS ought to be separated from debt talks and any fixes to SS can wait since the program is fully solvent for at least another 20 years. Why now?

• WHY he insists on CUTTING SS when other options that most Americans support and which are MUCH less damaging are available - such as raising or removing the FICA cap, or raising FICA tax rates - yet these options are NEVER mentioned or discussed by his admin. Why is that?

Social Security IS OUR MONEY. It is not an "entitlement". It is an EARNED BENEFIT and we have every right to an explanation as to WHY this president is CHOOSING to "bargain" it away in some unnecessary, immoral, unfair, and ill-conceived plan which we know has its roots in a group of very wealthy men who have sought to destroy the program since it was created. WHY is he helping them do it?

President Obama needs to be cornered with these questions. Preferably by some very angry voters who supported his (re)election - however I doubt he has the guts to face them after what he's done on this issue - which he surely knows is wrong, unfair, and grossly immoral.

It is unconscionable to force our nation's elderly, sick, disabled vets, and our poor to suffer even more to pay down a debt which THEY didn't create and which Social Security hasn't added one cent to.

I KNOW this president knows better than this. The American people certainly do. But he likely won't face them on this issue. I wonder how he can even face himself.

He's lost my support. If I wanted policies like this, I'd have voted Republican. I don't want them. I didn't vote for them. And I never will.

In the clip above, Barack Obama said:

"John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either."

In regards to this, a friend commented thusly: "I find him scary, because his image/words/speeches do not match his deeds."

This comment says a lot. I've had people in my life like this: Jekyll-Hyde types. They were two-faced, not trustworthy. You don't want them in your life and you don't want them in power. President Obama's Jekyll-Hyde problem in regards to Social Security is one example of why.

We expect Republicans to conscienceless and diabolical. Not Democrats. And that's what this proposal to cut Social Security is: conscienceless and diabolical. Particularly so since it was Democrats who created and have consistently protected this program. And mark my words, Republicans will use Obama's willingness to cut it as part of their 2014 campaign against Democrats. They've already started.

I wrote previously about Pete Peterson and his "Fix the Debt" lobbying apparatus, and about how Obama's two appointments to the "catfood commission" are its top leaders - Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. You can see my post about that and other issues here.

Though he made these appointments, perhaps many people thought that they were just some sort of window dressing and that surely a Democratic President would not seriously advocate cutting Social Security. No Democrat has ever done that. They were wrong about him. I was wrong about him.

This issue is a defining one for Barack Obama and his betrayal is worse than just betrayal. It's a Chicago gangster-style knife in back of the majority of Americans for no reason other than achieving a "grand bargain" with obstinate Republicans who've been hellbent on destroying Obama, Social Security and this country practically since their existence.

I can assure President Obama that Americans do not appreciate his presumptuously bargaining away their retirement savings needlessly and unfairly as part of a package to appease the most extreme, greedy, dangerous, unethical, hostage-taking, uncompromising contingent of our government and business sectors who want their hands on our money, and have for decades.

These money-hoarding, greed-driven factions don't care if any middle-class or poor Americans live or die from one day to the next. But most Americans rightly expect an allegedly Democratic President to care. It turns out he doesn't. Some goddamned "grand bargain" with the most greed-driven, impossible and unproductive contingent that has ever existed in Congress is more important to him.

And there's no other reason for this. None. Well, except this one, very nicely pointed out by TheNation magazine:

In fact, there is an even bigger lie concealed by the fiscal scolds and ignored by witless media, too. Again and again, self-righteous critics have portrayed Social Security as the profligate monster borrowing from the Treasury and sucking the life out of federal government. Guess what? It's the other way around. The federal government borrows from Social Security. The Treasury has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund for 30 years, and the debt to Social Security beneficiaries now totals nearly $3 trillion. The day is approaching when that money will be needed for its original purpose: paying Social Security benefits to the working people who contributed to the fund.

That is the real crisis that makes the financial barons and their media collaborators so anxious to cut Social Security benefits. They would like to get out of repaying the debt—that is, giving the money back to the people who earned it. The only way to do this is cut the benefits—over and over again. Count on it. If the president and Congress succeed in this malicious scheme, they will come back again and again to cut more and more. If the politicians join this sordid conspiracy, voters should come after them with pitchforks and torches.

You can read the entire article here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/173771/will-voters-forgive-obama-cutting-social-security

And as for the question of whether voters will forgive Obama for cutting Social Security - the answer is a resounding: "HELL NO!"

Social Security belongs to the American people. It's OURS. It does not belong to President Obama or Wall St. It is not HIS or THEIRS to bargain with.

How dare you Mr. President.

© 2013 Seven Bowie

SOURCE: http://www.sevenbowie.com/2013/04/social-security-belongs-to-the-american-people-it-is-not-obamas-to-bargain-with-how-dare-you-mr-president/

(I am the author)

Go to Page: 1