Conservative VS Liberal

[BJean 16]

I found this interesting dialogue excerpt today. Thought I'd share it since it relates to some of the debates that we've had about politics and war in the U.S.A. Note the date.

Nazi Leader Herman Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trails, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert’s book, Nuremberg Diary:

Goering, “Naturally the common people don’t want war… but it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.”

Gilbert: “There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

Goering: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the biding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

[pattygreen 5]

Our leaders never had to 'simply' announce that we were being attacked. We knew we were being attacked! That is the difference. In 1946, there wasn't much communication that spreads like it does today. At that time, they could 'lie' and say their country was under attack and get the people to go to war through deceit. That's not possible today.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I found this interesting dialogue excerpt today. Thought I'd share it since it relates to some of the debates that we've had about politics and war in the U.S.A. Note the date.

Nazi Leader Herman Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trails, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert’s book, Nuremberg Diary:

Goering, “Naturally the common people don’t want war… but it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.”

Gilbert: “There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

Goering: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the biding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Very scary, BJean. And exactly what happened here since Iraq DIDN'T attack us, had nothing to do with 9/11, didn't have WMD's and yet bush had most of the country thinking Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Most of the soldiers in Iraq thought that, too, for a long time.

Those who didn't support bush were called unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists.

[pattygreen 5]

By going to war in Iraq, we have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a large source of their terrorist funding. The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We do know that there was a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida. One of the reasons we went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. If we could have been successful in Iraq, if we could stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists,this would have struck a major blow right at the heart of the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

By going to war in Iraq, we have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a large source of their terrorist funding. The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We do know that there was a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida. One of the reasons we went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. If we could have been successful in Iraq, if we could stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists,this would have struck a major blow right at the heart of the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

What conservative website did you get this right wing propaganda from? It is total BS.

Here are the facts (but I know you dismiss facts when they don't support your views, whether it's the CBO report, a poll of Mass. voters or the following):

The Iraq Connection

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01 The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding

This conclusion was reached while bush was president, but again, I know that you will dismiss facts and instead quote opinions.

Al Qaeda only came into Iraq AFTER we invaded the country and then used it as a recruitment tool, so the war in Iraq actually CAUSED Al Qaeda to come into Iraq.

[BJean 16]

We were lied to. Congress was lied to. The Bush administration manipulated people and misrepresented intelligence reports. They used fear to get Congress to go to war. They called people unpatriotic who didn't go along.

Your post is propaganda, patty. We have not accomplished what we were told we were seeking. We killed thousands of innocent people. We razed the infrastructure of Iraq. By doing so, the terrorists gained sympathy and support from people who had not given them support in the past. The terrorists have become stronger, not weaker. They are a bigger threat now than ever.

We allowed a man (men) to take over our country, take away some of our very cherished basic freedoms and yet people still believe the lies. And now those same people who were sucked in by the fear mongering and lies, are doing all they can to undermine the new president . A president who was elected by a resounding outcry of Americans who did understand what had been going on.

My God this country is a scary place.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The american people are angry at the greedy banks. The Obama administration is pushing banking reform to rein in the "too big to fail" banks and to add common sense regulations that would help prevent the financial crisis and greed of wall street that caused our economic crisis. Now you would think republicans would support this BUT.....

* The House of Representatives on December 11 approved a financial reform bill, but only by a close 223-202 vote. All of the chamber's Republicans and 27 Democrats voted against bill, which bank and Wall Street lobbyists fought for months.

With congressional elections ahead in November, and Democrats suddenly anxious about them, lobbyists and Republicans will likely be less willing than before to compromise, having found electoral success in their strategy of obstruction and delay.

* The House of Representatives on December 11 approved a financial reform bill, but only by a close 223-202 vote. All of the chamber's Republicans and 27 Democrats voted against bill, which bank and Wall Street lobbyists fought for months.

With congressional elections ahead in November, and Democrats suddenly anxious about them, lobbyists and Republicans will likely be less willing than before to compromise, having found electoral success in their strategy of obstruction and delay.

That's right - all of the republicans sided with the big banks and voted against reform.

Now, who was that who said they were pure and whose votes were not for sale?

[BJean 16]

In my part of the country, which is probably one of the slowest to feel the impact of national problems, the banks aren't lending money.

They've counseled the appraisers that they are only willing to loan the assessed (for real estate taxes) value and even then will make the buyer jump through hoops to get that. I understand why they might want to be cautious, but what our economy needs is for people to borrow and the housing industry to bounce back.

In our neighborhood we have buyers. They are perfectly willing to pay what the homes are worth (based solely on cost to build plus improvements - no inflation or appreciation considered) but the appraisers won't value the houses as they should because nothing has sold in the last 8 months. So here we sit in our pre-owned homes, unable to move up or down because the darned banks won't play fair.

Our tax money bailed them out and now they're slapping us in the face like this. If the banks were willing to make home loans, the economy would start moving again in the right direction - at least insofar as housing is concerned. This is something that our president should get involved in since the congress is stuck, as usual.

[pattygreen 5]

Our tax money bailed them out and now they're slapping us in the face like this.

Not ALL the banks. Only some of them. Many gave the money back because they didn't like the strings that wereattached. Now Obama wants ALL the banks, even the ones he didn't give anything to. to pay a tax for the people loaning them the money.

Hey, why don't we just tax all the Holliwood stars? They make more than they should. How about all those football stars, they make more than most people? See the stupidity in that? Gov. wants to control how much money someone can make.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Our tax money bailed them out and now they're slapping us in the face like this.

Not ALL the banks. Only some of them. Many gave the money back because they didn't like the strings that wereattached. Now Obama wants ALL the banks, even the ones he didn't give anything to. to pay a tax for the people loaning them the money.

Hey, why don't we just tax all the Holliwood stars? They make more than they should. How about all those football stars, they make more than most people? See the stupidity in that? Gov. wants to control how much money someone can make.

We didn't bail out Hollywood stars or football players.

[pattygreen 5]

We didn't bail out Hollywood stars or football players.

And we didn't bail out ALL the banks.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

And we didn't bail out ALL the banks.

And Pres. Obama is not trying to cap the salaries of all bank executives, only the ones who took TARP (taxpayer) money, which the majority of americans support.

[pattygreen 5]

And Pres. Obama is not trying to cap the salaries of all bank executives, only the ones who took TARP (taxpayer) money, which the majority of americans support.

that's not what i heard. But I may be wrong. I will research and check it out and get back to you on it.

[pattygreen 5]

Obama plan to tax large financial firms designed to pay for TARP losses - washingtonpost.com

This is the tax I was thinking of. But you'll notice that most of the banks have already given the money back to the government because they didn't like the strings attached to borrowing it. Or, they paid it back with interest.

"This proposed tax on banks, many of whom have fully paid back TARP funds with profit to the government, does not support economic recovery, increase lending, or meet the needs of the American consumer," said Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association.

It isn't fair to the banks who didn't borrow money or the ones who borrowed, yet paid it back.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Obama plan to tax large financial firms designed to pay for TARP losses - washingtonpost.com

This is the tax I was thinking of. But you'll notice that most of the banks have already given the money back to the government because they didn't like the strings attached to borrowing it. Or, they paid it back with interest.

"This proposed tax on banks, many of whom have fully paid back TARP funds with profit to the government, does not support economic recovery, increase lending, or meet the needs of the American consumer," said Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association.

It isn't fair to the banks who didn't borrow money or the ones who borrowed, yet paid it back.

Recouping money from the greedy banks who benefited from the taxpayer bailout and who have tons of money for bonuses for those who made the bad decisions, and it wouldn't affect small banks? Well, I think this is GREAT!! I don't care if they paid the money back or not.

And I certainly don't give a rat's a$$ what someone who represents the Bankers Association says.

To be clear: I am on the side of and advocate for:

-working people

-unions

-the least among us

-women's rights

-environmental regulations

-separation of church & state

-healthcare for all, among other things

I AM NOT ON THE SIDE OF NOR DO I ADVOCATE FOR;

-corporate america(oil companies, banks, insurance, big pharma, etc..)

-CEO's

-the wealthy

-the NRA

Now, if you choose to advocate for the latter group, then that is your choice. But don't worry, with bush's conservative appointed supreme court ruling today, this latter group will be buying all the elections in the future. Now, let's see which group embraced that decision.

Would that be the democrats or the pure republicans whose votes are not for sale? HMMM. I saw Mr. Coppertone himself (Boehner) saying what a great decision it was (I think I saw dollar signs dancing above his head as he said it, but I could be wrong).