HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,399

Journal Archives

Excellent article comparing the 1950s McCarthyism's rise to power, as well as fall, to what is

taking place with Rush Limbaugh today. Businesses are now withdrawing their support of
Limbaugh by the droves. Something similar is happening to Fox -- although, in this case,
not as drastically, at least, not yet. Is the end of half-truths, falsehoods, pure inventions
and lies in the news media finally in sight?

Will this era of journalistic nightmare finally and really be coming to an end? Will sanity in
journalism take over again? I don't believe so, yet. But I say, "The sooner the better."

Limbaugh accused the Pope of Communism -- Sen. Joe McCarthy accused Eisenhower and
the US Army of Communism. After the Us Army - Joe McCarthy hearings, this latter was
censured by the Senate. He became ostracized not only by his colleagues, but also by most
of the people whom he had known. He was isolated and died a couple of years later in 1957
at the age of 48. The number of innocent lives he had wrecked when he was working his
way to power in the early 1950's!


Limbaugh and others were stupid enough to accuse the Pope of being Communist. It could be their

biggest mistake and will backfire. They will begin to lose those followers who know that the Pope
is anything but Communist. And the older Right Wingers will begin to remember the McCarthy
Era days, when he accused Eisenhower and the US Army of being Communist.

I hope this will be the beginning of the end of the effectiveness of the lies of Limbaugh, Fox News,
et al..... More and more of those who have been fooled, will begin to see the light.

<< It will likely never matter to these critics that Pope Francis himself has emphatically denied any association with Marxism or Marxist ideology. And so in a recent interview, he took another tack: Rather than making another attempt to roundly decry a set of ideologies no one seriously suspects him of adhering to, Pope Francis turned the criticisms around on the critics:

"I can only say that the communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the center of the Gospel," he said, citing Biblical passages about the need to help the poor, the sick and the needy. "Communists say that all this is communism. Sure, twenty centuries later. So when they speak, one can say to them: 'but then you are Christian'."

In other words, since his concern for the poor causes critics to accuse him of Marxism, Pope Francis reversed their accusations: rather than Christianity looking suspiciously communist over its concern for the poor, perhaps communism looks suspiciously Christian. After all, justice for the poor is hardly a communist invention; as Pope Francis points out, a focus on helping the poor was native to Christianity long before the 19th century.

But Pope Francis' reversal has another effect: namely, it calls into question why our political narratives immediately categorize any demand for justice for the poor as anti-Christian communism. In fact, it would seem rather impossible to practice any legitimate form of Christianity without seeking justice for the poor. If we immediately identify support for impoverished people as evidence of some anti-Christian impulse, then we've built up a political narrative that can't sustain the truth about Christianity. >>


I think too many GOP leaders in high positions are sociopaths, and sociopaths are only capable

of framing laws to support their own opinions. They are incapable of framing their opinions
to support the law. This is part of the sociopathic character. And they cannot change.

Hence, as long as there are too many sociopaths in high positions, sooner or later there
will be conflicts and wars. They can't help it. Our system can stand a few of them in high
places, but not more without getting into repeated chaos and crises. And this is exactly
what is happening right now. Our nation is being ruined by them right before our eyes.

SOCIOPATHS ARE THE PROBLEM -- WORLDWIDE. They always have been, since the
dawn of history.

It takes 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach earth. Solar winds travel way, way slower than

light does.

A hearty welcome to DU.

I don't know if most Amazon employees are dissatisfied with their pay or not. Do you?

The Biblical name for present-day Iraq was "Mesopotamia." They were the first people

to invent the written language some 6,000 years ago. All the written
languages in the West are derived from the Mesopotamian. Some ten
centuries later the Egyptians developed their script, which wasn't very
efficient and died out. The Chinese developed their written language
at about the same time as the Egyptians did.

I wouldn't exactly say that the British and the French "invented Iraq."
Iraq (or Mesopotamia) was responsible for Western civilization, even
though it is one of the have-not nations today.

It seems quite clear that no nation in history has been Numero Uno
forever. Nations seem to reach the top by turns, and then fade. They
could rise again, of course.

Surprising article by super-rich Nick Hanauer (who recently invested $6.4 billion in Amazon) telling

his fellow super-rich, that the way to avoid civil war and stay rich is by paying employees livable
wages. The results: everybody will be able to afford to buy what they need and want, the rich
will be able to sell more and make greater profits, taxes to help support the homeless and needy
would no longer be necessary, government would become smaller (which is what many super-rich
want) the middle-classes will become re-established, people in general will be more satisfied.

A super-rich has not only come around to our way of thinking at DU, he is also doing his best
to convince his fellow super-rich of the validity of his presentation. Can you imagine that!!

This is a fairly long article.


I've read Colin Powell's autobiography a long time ago. This is my personal opinion: Bush, Sr.

had played a big role in Powell's promotion to general, as well as doing him other favors.
Powell probably felt a personal debt of gratitude to Bush, Sr. When Bush, Jr. became
president, Powell possibly tried to repay that debt to the father through working for the
son as Secretary of State, when Junior offered him the job.

Maybe he really believed the falsified documents of Saddam Hussein's having had WMD,
and then again maybe he believed them because he WANTED to believe them.

Bush, Jr. is a jinx. Whatever and whomever he touched he turned into a disaster. Powell
had such a great career -- he became a national hero after the Persian Gulf War. If he
had run against Clinton in 1992, he probably would have won the presidency. But then,
he would have had to run against Bush, Sr. during the Republican primaries -- something
he would never allow himself to do.

I can just imagine his present regret at having accepted Junior's offer of the job. How
great must be his regret at not having stayed retired. Junior just made use of him because
of his name. And the result? The national hero has now become a villain. I don't think
he is a villain. In 2008 he voted for and supported Obama. His was a great career
destroyed by that jinx Bush, Jr.

I think there are some of both types among us. Some are DINO and have

values more like those of the GOP.

Former CIA bigwig predicts an "open-source revolution" is coming and the 1% is bound to lose. He

ought to know what he is talking about. A fairly long article, but it gives a good
deal of interesting info:

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »