According to Rocky Anderson, in this radio interview on the Peter B. Collins show, “The New York Times” didn’t even cover last weeks, (albeit disguised), impeachment hearing, and the “Washington Post” published it’s second snarky article by Dana Milbanks about representative John Conyer’s attempts to cast light on the war crimes of the Bush administration by holding hearings of much greater import then Watergate.
Milbank’s first snarly article was about a hearing that was held when the Democrats didn’t have a majority in congress, and were forced by the Republicans to hold this important forum, which proceeded with high level proof our country was lied into war, in a very small room in the basement of the capitol. It’s demoralizing that such an article would be in the very publication credited with bringing down the corrupt Nixon administration and proving our system of checks and balances, which included constitutional rights for the press, could be a example to the free world.
Ironically, while the unofficial, but nonetheless momentous 2005 hearing was taking place downstairs, the Republicans were convening flag burning debates upstairs.
My, how things have changed down at The Post over the years. Take another look at the recent Post article and notice that the photo actually contains a sarcastic caption, and gives the impression the witnesses are bored with the proceedings. At least Keith Olbermann’s minders at MSNBC had the good sense not to have Milbanks, a regular guest, on during it’s very brief coverage of the subject and possibly anger loyal viewers.
Personally, I was riveted by the hearings and am proud of Anderson’s pleading for our media organizations to “Tell Us The Truth.” What could he have possibly gained by angering the heads of organizations that could help make or break him in the public arena. Because of their cowardice, a lot of willfully ignorant and politically lazy people in Utah disrespect one of the bravest politicians in the country; one of their own.
But you haven’t seen anything yet! The following video is NOT produced by “The Onion”, a political parody website. It’s not even from the Fox “News”, (parody of itself), network. This is from a former news network political pundits, (learned persons), used to call the “Clinton News Network” to perpetuate the myth of a liberal slant in the media.
THIS… IS CNN.
The same “news” channel that covered the Clinton impeachment, 24/7. The same “news” channel that today can’t, (or wont), get the political affiliation of two Republicans in the following video right.
I’m so glad Bush is unaffected by all this impeachment talk, in fact I’m just giddy, aren’t you?
Note: The question mark is omitted from the title of this post intentionally.
States have been using...
#1 by Bob S. - August 1st, 2008 at 17:46
Richard,
I think you missed the point of the ad, it really wasn’t anything subliminal. Obama is being treated as a celebrity; both by his supporters and the media.
What has Obama accomplished in his years of public service?
6 years in the Illinois Senate, how many important pieces of legislation did he introduce?
Junior Senator from Illinois since 2004, how many years has he spend running for president since his election?
How many pieces of legislation has he introduced at the federal level? Less then 70?
How of those are important and how many are pork?
The point of the ad is to highlight Barracks lack of experience at most anything else but being in the public eye; like Paris or Brittany.
#2 by Cliff Lyon - August 1st, 2008 at 20:13
Obama is a leader. Like Clinton
The best executives are leaders.
Obama is the first politicians to say, finally, “I don’t need to be an expert, I just need to be able to learn from the smartest people on the subject.
Obama will make your life better whether you acknowledge it or not.
#3 by Bob S. - August 1st, 2008 at 20:23
Cliff,
What has Obama led?
#4 by Who is watching the watchers - August 1st, 2008 at 20:29
Pol Pot had leaders,
Mao was a leader
Stalin was a leader
Hitler was a leader
A “leader” is what you use to direct animals. Or attach hooks to for fishing.
America is a representative democracy. We are meant to have people that serve our will under the Constitution. All representatives are sworn to this by Oath.
We do not need a leader, this isn’t the Boy Scouts.
“Obama will make your life better whether you acknowledge it or not”.
Did you actually write that Cliff? Dude…scary stuff. You don’t actually believe that do you? You have no fuckin’ idea how it will turn out.
Then this;
“Obama is the first politicians to say, finally, “I don’t need to be an expert, I just need to be able to learn from the smartest people on the subject”.
Am I to assume that your leader, admittedly doesn’t know very much, and will have a multiplicity of leaders to tell him what to do? Like brezinski on foreign policy, and skull and bones goolsbee on the economy policy? It can get worse.
That’s it, I’m buying Kool Aid stock, and investing in a sugar company, this coming from you? Jesus, Jahweh and Bhudda, and maybe even Mohammed.
#5 by Who is watching the watchers - August 1st, 2008 at 20:42
Say Anything Sanjaya!
#6 by Albert O. - August 1st, 2008 at 21:45
Bob:
One thing Obama has led is an organization that beat a very formidable Clinton campaign to become the presumptive Democratic nominee; he also led a campaign to become a senator from Illinois. Maybe a better question is what has Obama screwed up in his lifetime, compared to the many screwups that GWB accomplished prior to and following becoming c-in-c. You really need to let go of your unfounded fears, take a deep breath, and open your eyes!
#7 by Who is watching the watchers - August 1st, 2008 at 21:54
What are we going to say if the old man beats him?
Should have had Hillary?
This about covers it.
#8 by Who is watching the watchers - August 2nd, 2008 at 00:44
Obama…The Leader. That sounds familiar, where have I heard it before?
Oh yes, The Leader…Il Duce, there it is.
Il Duce Obama Messiah…perfect.
Doesn’t Der Furher mean The Leader? Seem to know it does.
Not a good angle for a sales pitch for president of a free country.
#9 by Bob S. - August 2nd, 2008 at 05:41
Albert,
Look into his campaign to become the Illinois state senator, what underhanded tricks did he pull there?
As far as the primary campaign, how much of that is Obama and how much of it is his staff? Is there a Democrat Karl Rove pulling the strings on the Obama puppet, we don’t know.
That is the entire point of what I’m trying to say. There isn’t enough depth to consider what type of leader Obama will be or even is. That was the point of the ad, the public is treating Obama as a celebrity based on the superficial; appearance, articulate-except when he goes off script, his presence; instead of evaluating him on what he plans on doing.
I’ve looked at his web site; great plans on how he’s going to have the federal government do a lot of things for a lot of folks, but no plans to pay for it all. No Depth.
As far as mistakes go, look at all of the proverbs and sayings about learning from our mistakes. I never begrudge someone making a mistake unless they don’t learn from it. What mistakes has Obama had time to make? Very few, no depth of experience. No way to judge how he will respond to new problems based on how he responded to previous problems.
Believe it or not, I really looked at Obama as a viable candidate once Thompson was out. I just didn’t like what I saw; way too much of a socialist agenda for my taste.
#10 by Richard Warnick - August 2nd, 2008 at 08:32
Bob S.– If you want to equate time in Washington with accomplishment or leadership qualities, that’s not a winning argument. McCain has been lauded for his leadership on immigration reform– but he did a 180 on that so he could get the nomination. It never passed. McCain has also flipped on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, torture, tax cuts for the rich, campaign-finance reform, oil drilling, and Roe v. Wade among other things.
I was an enthusiastic McCainiac in 2000. At the time, I thought he would never run again for president because he would be too old (McCain said the same thing, BTW). I never thought McCain would turn from a straight talker into a flip-flopper. I never thought McCain would employ Karl Rove and his team of dirty tricksters. I never thought McCain would resort to lying about political opponents.
This is a “change election” and McCain offers us a third Bush term. Because their candidate is either wrong or has flip-flopped on every issue, the McCain campaign has to resort to Rovian tactics. They are desperate to change the subject. It makes no sense at all to claim Obama is a racist, or argue that he’s too presidential, too popular, or too good at making speeches– but it’s a way to avoid a debate on about what really matters to voters.
#11 by Bob S. - August 2nd, 2008 at 09:28
Richard,
I’m not arguing anything about time in Washington. I’m looking for anything substantive that Obama has done. I also don’t think that McCain is any great shakes, I just think that he’s a better option than Obama.
Obama isn’t racist in my opinion, he’s just throwing out the race card by accusing that is what the other campaign will do. His statements that McCain will try to make people scared of him was fine until he said “oh, and did you know he’s black”. That’s throwing out the race card. I don’t care what color or lack of color a candidate has but their experience or lack of experience.
If Obama wants to debate, why won’t his campaign accept McCain’s town hall offer?
The issue isn’t, in my opinion, that Obama is too presidential or too popular just that he’s too superficial. I don’t see the depth of experience or the details to implement his programs. I also don’t like the direction of his programs which are very socialist in nature.
I don’t have a problem with change, I just don’t agree with the direction Obama wants to take the country.
#12 by Richard Warnick - August 2nd, 2008 at 09:46
Bob S.– Ask yourself, why is Senator Obama such a popular candidate for president? It’s because this is a “change election.” It’s not a referendum on Obama. It’s about the Bush administration’s policies, which 80 percent of Americans are against.
#13 by Who is watching the watchers - August 2nd, 2008 at 10:47
Well unless I made an error, and I don’t think I did, this is the real
Sanjaya say anything link.
It refers to Obamas’ change of opinion concerning offshore oil drilling.
No matter what anyone does, the real Sanjaya is going to get judged, and now his adherents hear from his own mouth that McCain is not a racist. Now what shall he be smeared with that Obama worshipers can understand?
#14 by Larry Bergan - August 2nd, 2008 at 12:29
Bob S:
Don’t you have any comment about my “making money with money” or “a days work for a days pay” angle? I thought it was pretty insightful.
#15 by Who is watching the watchers - August 2nd, 2008 at 12:50
Larry, we are living in the middle of a giant pyramid scheme.
You must have heard of fractional reserve banking. Under US law banks must only keep 3% of deposits on hand to serve customer withdrawals. Anything they receive over that, thay can lend out again.
In many cases for large loans there is no real money, the lending institution(large ones) simply make a phone call to the Federal Reserve. Abracadabra presto! The money suddenly appears into ledgers of the banks to further lend away.
Ponzi was a piker compared to what we see today.
For the last few years we have been seeing the “plunge protection team” dumping money into the stock market, buying stocks through member firms to give the appearance of a rising market. The money is “lent”, read created by the Fed, and then We the People owe the money. This is what the current bailout and shafting of small holders in the market is all about. The entire affair is designed to allow the big holders in the know of the real situation to exit….stage right, with their profits before the markets stink up the place.
The world is figuring out the scam, well they knew long ago, but feared the consequences of defying the US and elites in their international fraud racket. We are no longer strong enough to be afraid of, and the sinking of the dollar is the proof. The world is basically telling us to bugger off.
Sadly, one man will not be able to fix this diseased countenance of US fiscal policy (and I use that term loosely) no matter how popular he is, or how much of a patriot he appears to be. Problems like this are long in the making, secret in the baking, and clear in the taking.
Look who has the money and all will become clear. It isn’t us, and we are in further debt. McCain or Obama will spend us further, the promise of new taxes like the due comeuppance of a payday loan that We the People took out to buy a sugary refreshment to make us all feel better.
There is no escape from this disaster but by war, or inflation. To anyone of us little people, it means whatever savings you have are forfeit, to save the precious fortunes of the Masters of the Universe, that concocted this entire scheme.
Ever wonder why there is a Pyramid on our dollar currency? Laugh it away, no one gets out of here clean. That is something you can take to the bank.
#16 by Bob S. - August 2nd, 2008 at 17:27
Albert,
I was waiting to think over how best to respond to that post. I’m not sure of your level of understanding of basic finance. It certainly appears to be rudimentary at best, unless you are just trying to agitate.
First, you are confusing two concepts; Investing and compound Interest. Both are acceptable, moral, ethical wealth creation mechanisms.
Both are the basis for the growth of our country and others; what objection do you to people providing companies with the resource to grow? Money doesn’t grow on trees, at least not here in Texas.
I disagree that making money with money is immoral because anyone investing in a company is providing a service, a resource for that company to grow. How does a start up company buy equipment, supplies, buildings, hire personnel without money? It can come from a single investor or from many, but money makes it possible for companies to grow- isn’t that a good thing?
I think you are just baiting for a response, sorry if I”m not flying off the handle.
As far as a day’s work for a day’s pay, don’t confuse what you do with how you make your money. I work for a living it pays the bills. I have very little invested outside of my retirement accounts, but I’m working to change that.
I work harder studying where to invest then I do on my day job.
What are your objections to investing?
#17 by Larry Bergan - August 3rd, 2008 at 00:27
Let me try and put it this way. What if your dad had millions of dollars and left you millions in the stock market that you lived on your entire life and never had to work. What is the purpose of that money. Does it act as a measure of your contribution to your society and those around you? Why should you be able to spend your time hanging around capitol hill, making things go your way while the other unlucky bastards have to spend their time toiling for others and watching their freedoms go down the hatch, like most Americans do?
In other words, if money isn’t a fair measure of somebody’s true worth, what is it for?
#18 by Who is watching the watchers - August 3rd, 2008 at 03:12
To buy anything you want, that is what money is for. It has no moral compass, it is after all just a bunch of metal, paper, and cyber notations.
Contributions to society are your own subjective evaluation, you do it for your purposes, and judging others for what they do with money, should do nothing more than compel you to get more of it…to do what you want.
#19 by Bob S. - August 3rd, 2008 at 06:41
Larry,
I agree with Watcher. Do with the money as you want.
Also, remember I said earlier, don’t confuse what you do with how you make your money. Your example could be a prime example. Some people will simply fritter away their life; others will use their life to make a difference in the world.
Each is an acceptable choice for them to make, how is it not?
Who says that you can only spend money that you’ve earned yourself, what law, moral imperative, etc requires that?
I teach my kids that if they apply themselves in what they do, they can be successful. Having the trapping of a good life is usually the definition; house,car, enough food, clothing etc.
Then I go on to say “but if you do God’s will for you with that same effort, you’ll be significant”. That is what matters, being significant in other people’s life. I’m not taking about celebrity status, riches, but impact on people.
#20 by Who is watching the watchers - August 3rd, 2008 at 09:23
However Bob if you follow along in a biblical sense, compounded interest, on food or money, is a sin and is better known as usury. I often wonder if there are rules under a watchful God, whether this rather insidious mechanism has not kept all of the western world in a condition of sin.
From the trust fund created when a baby is born, to the first loan one assumes to buy a car, and so on. Most everyone is either at the mercy of usury, or engaged in it.
It is interesting that our current mortal enemy has one significant difference in banking process. Islamic banks do not charge interest, as it against Gods’ law. The God of Abraham anyway, the one that Christians, Jews, and Islamics all supposedly share. Their banks earn money on money lent, by fees. Compound interest is not permitted.
I have given this a fair bit of thought, though I myself am no doctrinaire believer.
The question, why has God made usury, or earning increase from lending a sin?
In reading of the bible it would seem that ” God” finds offensive the notion that a man can intervene between a person and their access to what belongs to the Almighty.
In short everything here on Earth, belongs to God. That a man utilizes the elements of the Earth, to represent these holdings of the Lord, and then lend them to another, while in the process enriching oneself is an act which puts a man in the position to be held by the Lord. One makes themselves Gods middleman, uses his capital, at the expense of another of Gods’ human creations… and he doesn’t like it. You basically make another a willful slave to you, for the purpose of material increase here on Earth. God is less than impressed.
Usury is a sin.
Whatever a man tell himself thereafter in sophistry as to why the method is “good” and ethical, is merely the tapestry spun by the sinner to justify his/her deed. Cognitive Consonance. It will of course do no good, God judges, and for this deed, you may well end up in hell.
I don’t know if such is the case, and do not trouble myself, though personally I detest loans of interest, they do generate a parasite class in my view. How are we to arrive at capital you may ask Bob to do the things we deem necessary? I seem to remember they called it “saving”. Maybe the Good Lord would have us work together.
Then of course there are the methods of how money is lent for purpose that is most unseemly.
If a nation under government prints its own money and distributes it, why is there interest at all? I would argue it is only because an insidious group of parasites have sought to control the method so that they need not work or produce anything to maintain their existence here on Earth. God hates a sloth. It is one of the 7 deadly sins. In this regard, we can see those engaged in fractional reserve banking, going the fast route to hell.
What would prevent a government from issuing its own currency to a citizen “lendee” with no interest? For example to construct a house. 100,000 is “lent” under payment schedule by the Treasury, and then a repayment schedule is set up for the loan. In the process a home is built, and when the loan is repaid, the Treasury could well shovel the money into a furnace once repaid, as allow a banker to fatten and do nothing for his existence. Even if the loan was not paid, fair market value is paid for the lumber, the builder/worker is paid in a timely fashion if he is not a fool, and if there is no repayment the Treasury prints more money into existence if it is needed. In addition is home is now in the world created from nothing more than the concept of no interest lending. Very Godlike, very much like a miracle.
The repayment process is just like it is now, except without a parasite class, that at their essence are inSINuating a practice that pulls the entire society down into the wallow of material focus in the here and now…while leaving many to ignore the Kingdom come.
Just one mans opinion, and from one with a certain ambivalence of whether or not God is really watching any of this.
#21 by Larry Bergan - August 3rd, 2008 at 11:26
That was actually a very good take on usury! Cynically brilliant, in fact!
Bob S. said:
I guess what Bob S is saying is that if somebody on welfare uses their money for whatever they think Gods purpose might be, that’s gravy.
#22 by Larry Bergan - August 6th, 2008 at 16:24
Finally, anti-impeachment shill, Dana Milbank, has been purged from “Countdown” and will now be where he belongs, on the terrible show this post is about.
Don’t let the door at MSNBC hit you Dana!
Now can we get serious about impeachment, Olbermann! Can we, huh, can we?!!