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


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Member since: Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:57 PM
Number of posts: 3,813

Journal Archives


First, let's get this necessity out of the way. I am a Democrat, and plan to vote for our President's reelection very soon.

However, an election is a time when candidates solicit support from We the People by outlining their positions (or in Romney/Ryan's case, by running from their past positions and attempting to obfuscate their present ones, apparently). From what I have read of him, Hedges is doing us (and yes, also Obama) a favor by agitating for progressive causes during an election. He is saying that fundamental issues of equality and justice cannot be ignored.

Those who choose to sweep these same issues under the rug in the name of unity and poll numbers virtually insure that important issues of equality and justice will again be ignored by whatever Democrats gain or retain power after January 2013. I don't want that; do you?

I fully believe that Obama has been a good president during his first term, but some unfortunate choices kept him from being a great president: leaving the banksters untouched following the greatest financial crime in history, appointing corporate cronies like Geithner, Summers, etc., appointing drug warriors like Holder, etc., failing to prosecute B*shco's many documented crimes and continuing some of their worst civil liberties abuses, etc. etc. etc. Am I willing to give Obama and the Democrats a second chance to achieve greatness in public works, individual freedom, economic development, and all the rest? Yes, hell yes. But they will have to answer Hedges critiques as they solicit votes. This is right & proper.


There are so many more unspoken, buried truths

Now that we know as indisputable facts that the B*sh mis-administration lied about the warnings it received in advance of 9/11 (the 8/6 PDB was only the last of many), the toxicity of the WTC debris, the reasons for the subseuent wars, the use of torture by US agencies, the true costs of the wars in blood & treasure, and so much more; it's time for the sensible middle of this country to ask what lies were told about the events of September Eleventh itself.

I will not belabor the points here in this thread, but why the nations' air defenses were completely down that day, why WTC 7 collapsed despite no external damage, how both of the towers collapsed promptly & entirely into their own footprints despite asymmetric impacts, how passports of the alleged highjackers were quickly found (undamaged!) amid the vast debris, and so many other questions have not yet been answered. I do not claim to know the answers myself, but I am rational enough to conclude that truthful answers have not yet been offered by anyone in power.

These questions about September Eleventh, 2001 are not the stuff of crazy conspiracy theories. They are the most rational reaction to the lies that have been told, and the truths that have been buried.


It's the oil exec way!

It's the oil exec way: take all the credit & pay, and pass the buck only when there is blame to be dodged.

K&R for an important document. Gross negligence should be a slam dunk in this case, and BP's owing of damages for the Horizon disaster should be open-ended until every sick Gulf resident is healed, until every fishery is thriving, until every wetland is restored, and until We the People say that BP has paid the enormous debt they incurred by their fuckup.


He appointed 5 of the 18, including both Simpson & Bowles


According to the above link, President Obama appointed Alan Simpson (co-chair; fmr. U.S. Senator), Dave M. Cote (Honeywell International), Erskine Bowles (co-chair; fmr. White House Chief of Staff), Andy Stern (fmr. president of Service Employees International Union), Alice Rivlin (Brookings Institution; fmr. director CBO and OMB and Fed vice chair), Ann M. Fudge (fmr. CEO Young & Rubicam Brands), and Bruce Reed (fmr. Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Clinton), executive director of Commission.

Both Simpson & Bowles are absolutely inexcusable, unless you enjoy watching demented pitbulls (Simpson) tear apart emotionally stunted chihuahuas (Bowles), who never wanted to fight to begin with. But that seems lousy, even by Michael Vick standards, especially when it's our retirement income that is on the line. Out of the rest, Andy Stern is the only one who reputedly stood against the overarching theme of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class, reneging on the Social Security bonds, and otherwise further hollowing-out America in the name of a few more years of coddling the 1%.

Additionally,responsibility for the very existence of the Commission lies with Obama (underline emphasis added):

The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 5346, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it.

Why did our Democratic President expend precious 1st-year political capital on the false-flag issue of debt reduction at the very time when stimulus and economic recovery were what was needed?


I knew Paul Ryan's & Alan Simpson's politics in 2009

On (2nd) Edit: I initially interpreted Plucketeer's humor above as an attempt to derail the discussion and drag it down to a sarcastic caricature of the birther nonsense. But sometimes a joke is just an attempt at humor, even here at DU.

Now, on to the point of the Debt Commission itself:

I knew Paul Ryan's & Alan Simpson's politics in 2009, and I'm just a dude who reads the news. Are you saying that Obama, the President of the US and leader of the Democratic Party, did not?

People who oppose all taxes have no business being placed on a 'Debt Commission,' especially one appointed by a Democratic administration. All I am saying is that Obama could have handled the matter better in 2009 had he kept the slash-&-burn Teahadist wing of faux fiscal conservatism far from any such commission. Their craven greed and twisted lies on behalf of the 1% deserved no such mantle of legitimacy. I question even appointing a 'Debt Commission' at all during 2009, but if one was really necessary for whatever reason, the Democratic side should have had only pro-Social Security, pro-progressive-taxation, pro-worker, FDR/New Deal advocates. This 'Turd Way' nonsense is worse than Reaganism: a stinking corporatist effluvium polluting our own Party.

Go to Page: 1