Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Or...Brutality?
Got your example of it right here: Those Sesame Street thugs!!
"A new documentary released by Al Jazeera exposes the use of childrens songs and heavy metal music to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay a tactic that came about not long after President George W. Bush created the camp to detain prisoners in the war on terror against Al Qaeda."
Read more: âSesame Streetâ songs and heavy metal blasted to torture Guantanamo detainees: reportÂ*Â* - NY Daily News
There never was a civil rights movement the Right liked. Instead, those on the Right attempt to marginalize, discriminate and belittle those American citizen wishing for what everyone else is supposed to have~ equality.
There never was a war the Right disliked. Not the meat grinder that was Vietnam. Not the invasion and occupation of Iraq which had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11. Whatever the cause, from propping up a brutal dictator to 'securing' resources from a foreign people, the Right dutifully falls in line drumming the war beat and criticizing those who would reconsider.
What about the wage disparity? The Right has no problem keeping the poor poor and making the rich richer, in spite of the brutality of such disparities.
Yup! The Right favors brutality over equality, brutality over diplomacy and brutality over the ability to make an honest wage for an honest day's work.
Bring the Sesame Street example again.
Based on your post, the Left favors ignorance.
You don't know nuttin.'
My poor, sad friend. You are clearly the product of the 'Liberal echo chamber'...you babble inaccuracies, and none of the other Libs correct you.
I will.
1. "There never was a civil rights movement the Right liked."
"...Civil Rights Act of 1964? Thats where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action."
Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - Conservative News, Views & Books
Strike one.
2. "There never was a war the Right disliked. Not the meat grinder that was Vietnam."
a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:
The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).
b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many hawks in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the Domino Theory and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:
If we quit Vietnam tomorrow well be fighting in Hawaii and next week well have to be fighting in San Francisco.
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam
c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.
Strike two!
3. "What about the wage disparity? The Right has no problem keeping the poor poor and making the rich richer, in spite of the brutality of such disparities."
Any difference in earnings, if that is what you are frothing about, is due to productivity.
Income and wealth inequality or demographics. In Alan Reynolds Income and Wealth, he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.
a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm
b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.
c. Other pertinent factors include age and experience of head of household, educational differences, the rise of working women, which increased the number of two-earner families, increased in college educated workers, percent of immigrants in the workforce, which also give the impression of inequality.
Strike three!!
Aren't you embarrassed at how wrong you are in every case...of course not. Water off a duck's back.
Now, even though my post is true, logical, and documented, I have no expectation that it will influence what passes for thinking in your existence....
...'cause you're a Liberal.
[
You are so easy....
...I roll you up and smoke you like a Cuban cigar.
Carby, "the Perfect Foil", enters, stage right.
BAGHDAD American and Iraqi officials have completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Husseins nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the countrys main nuclear site.
American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation 12 miles south of Baghdad, which had been the site of Iraqs nuclear program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html
There were no WMD's and all the non sequiturs in the world can't refute that.
I know you can't think....but can't you read, either?
Is yellow cake uranium not a danger as WMD?
Found in the Iraq nuclear program?
NO?
There were no WMD's and all the non sequiturs in the world can't refute that.
I know you can't think....but can't you read, either?
Is yellow cake uranium not a danger as WMD?
Found in the Iraq nuclear program?
NO?
Friendly advice: Read the links you post.
"...the material cannot be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb..."
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa...."
And this, from snopes.com:
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers, under the supervision of UN inspectors."
snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
Try to get past getting your information from the rightwing propaganda machine and wacky pass-around emails...
...please.
You hide behind the skirts of political party and not ideology. If the consistent linking of Democrat to Liberal and Conservative to Republican was true, George Wallace and Lester Maddox would be steeped in patchouli oil while singing "We shall overcome" and "If I had a hammer, I'd hammer out justice" simply because they were members of the Democrat party. And the Republicans would be refuting Teddy Roosevelt as a big government over regulator instead of "Trust Buster".Or...
There never was a civil rights movement the Right liked. Instead, those on the Right attempt to marginalize, discriminate and belittle those American citizen wishing for what everyone else is supposed to have~ equality.
There never was a war the Right disliked. Not the meat grinder that was Vietnam. Not the invasion and occupation of Iraq which had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11. Whatever the cause, from propping up a brutal dictator to 'securing' resources from a foreign people, the Right dutifully falls in line drumming the war beat and criticizing those who would reconsider.
What about the wage disparity? The Right has no problem keeping the poor poor and making the rich richer, in spite of the brutality of such disparities.
Yup! The Right favors brutality over equality, brutality over diplomacy and brutality over the ability to make an honest wage for an honest day's work.
Bring the Sesame Street example again.
Based on your post, the Left favors ignorance.
You don't know nuttin.'
My poor, sad friend. You are clearly the product of the 'Liberal echo chamber'...you babble inaccuracies, and none of the other Libs correct you.
I will.
1. "There never was a civil rights movement the Right liked."
"...Civil Rights Act of 1964? Thats where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action."
Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - Conservative News, Views & Books
Strike one.
2. "There never was a war the Right disliked. Not the meat grinder that was Vietnam."
a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:
The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).
b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many hawks in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the Domino Theory and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:
If we quit Vietnam tomorrow well be fighting in Hawaii and next week well have to be fighting in San Francisco.
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam
c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.
Strike two!
3. "What about the wage disparity? The Right has no problem keeping the poor poor and making the rich richer, in spite of the brutality of such disparities."
Any difference in earnings, if that is what you are frothing about, is due to productivity.
Income and wealth inequality or demographics. In Alan Reynolds Income and Wealth, he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.
a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm
b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.
c. Other pertinent factors include age and experience of head of household, educational differences, the rise of working women, which increased the number of two-earner families, increased in college educated workers, percent of immigrants in the workforce, which also give the impression of inequality.
Strike three!!
Aren't you embarrassed at how wrong you are in every case...of course not. Water off a duck's back.
Now, even though my post is true, logical, and documented, I have no expectation that it will influence what passes for thinking in your existence....
...'cause you're a Liberal.
If I had to defend a political ideology, Conservatism is the one I'd use such ham handed ruses for, because it is indefensible otherwise. Always on the wrong side of the curve of history, running a party smoke screen to cover the tracks of Conservatism is the only, if least intellectually noble course of all.
You're out.
I know you can't think....but can't you read, either?
Is yellow cake uranium not a danger as WMD?
Found in the Iraq nuclear program?
NO?
Friendly advice: Read the links you post.
"...the material cannot be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb..."
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa...."
And this, from snopes.com:
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers, under the supervision of UN inspectors."
snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
Try to get past getting your information from the rightwing propaganda machine and wacky pass-around emails...
...please.
How come you ignored this:
"The Wall Street Journal today reveals that Muammar Gaddafi has not destroyed weapons of mass destruction in Tripoli, Libya namely Mustard Gas, Uranium Yellowcake and Scud Missiles."
Gaddhafi WMD: Mustard Gas, Yellowcake, Scud Missiles | Maggie's Notebook
Oh, yeah...'cause it destroys your fabrications...
"Actually, it's called intelligence. You wouldn't understand..."
LOL!!!!! @ that coming from YOU!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Friendly advice: Read the links you post.
"...the material cannot be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb..."
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa...."
And this, from snopes.com:
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers, under the supervision of UN inspectors."
snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
Try to get past getting your information from the rightwing propaganda machine and wacky pass-around emails...
...please.
How come you ignored this:
"The Wall Street Journal today reveals that Muammar Gaddafi has not destroyed weapons of mass destruction in Tripoli, Libya namely Mustard Gas, Uranium Yellowcake and Scud Missiles."
Gaddhafi WMD: Mustard Gas, Yellowcake, Scud Missiles | Maggie's Notebook
Oh, yeah...'cause it destroys your fabrications...
The fact that I'm right and that writer is wrong is not my problem.
Now you are not being honest.
The 'punishment' for the Right in not agreeing to find a solution to the debt ceiling is to penalize the military.
This is in comparison to punishing the Left vis-a-vis entitlements...
But, you are aware of that....aren't you.
It's a "punishment" because each side considers those respective issues as high funding priorities. To say that actually harms the military is laughable. Even with the cuts, we're still spending around the same amount as the rest of the world combined. That's absurd in and of itself, until you then add on that most of the other big spenders are our allies.
This post is beyond tap dancing....it's Hip Hop!
1. "...still spending around the same amount as the rest of the world combined."
And that pertains.....how?
A discussion of the importance to world stability of the United States military is for another day.
BTW...Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
$3.69 trillon budget proposal
1. Social Security $738 20%
2.National Defense $738 20%
3. Income Security $567
4. Medicare $498
5.Net Interest $251
6. Health $381
7. Education $122
8. Veterans Benefits $122
9. Transportation $91.55
10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94
The same 20% as Social Security.
The fact that the Left threatens the military because the Right "considers those respective issues as high funding priorities" is strong evidence for the OP.
It's a "punishment" because each side considers those respective issues as high funding priorities. To say that actually harms the military is laughable. Even with the cuts, we're still spending around the same amount as the rest of the world combined. That's absurd in and of itself, until you then add on that most of the other big spenders are our allies.
This post is beyond tap dancing....it's Hip Hop!
1. "...still spending around the same amount as the rest of the world combined."
And that pertains.....how?
A discussion of the importance to world stability of the United States military is for another day.
BTW...Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
$3.69 trillon budget proposal
1. Social Security $738 20%
2.National Defense $738 20%
3. Income Security $567
4. Medicare $498
5.Net Interest $251
6. Health $381
7. Education $122
8. Veterans Benefits $122
9. Transportation $91.55
10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94
The same 20% as Social Security.
The fact that the Left threatens the military because the Right "considers those respective issues as high funding priorities" is strong evidence for the OP.
It's only evidence for the OP if you have a mistake belief that such a high level of spending is necessary for the defense of the nation.
Except who is proposing "defense budgets [be] cut to the bone"? The answer is no one. Even under the lower funding scenario, we're still talking about a world where we're vastly outspending all potential enemies.
Idiot isolationist Pubs ruined the League of Nations, started the Great Depression that led to militarists in Germany and Japan, let them run wild until we were attacked (luckily). Blaming FDR for the USSR keeping their area of control after 25 million dead is STUPID. Nobody with a brain thought any different. The stupidity of your revisionism is consistent with the rest of your Pub duperie.
