Hypocrisy of Republicans/Conservatives

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The stimulus:

Republican Sue Myrick (NC) told a town hall group: "Why shouldn't you just keep your money and create your own jobs instead of sending it to Washington?"

A statement like that is called a GAG (guaranteed applause getter).

But again, not so fast, because in a letter to her constituents she said the stimulus money would lead to solar energy jobs in areas hard hit by unemployment.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Republicans and smaller government:

Republicans always promote smaller government. We hear that from them all the time, as we have from the meeting of all the big wigs of the conservatives as they meet for CPAC.

They are offereing constitutional conservatism (I wonder if this will be more successful than the contract with america??) called the "Mount Vernon Statement" which confirms the smaller, limited government.

The reality however is that the government grew under all republican presidents, even when they controlled everything. Under bush- with the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. - it grew larger than it had in decades.

[ariscus99 1]

One wouldn’t think that the state of Texas would have much trouble supporting gun owners who should be allowed to defend their family or themselves in their own homes, cars or places of business. But until recently, Texas didn’t have a “castle doctrine” law on the books.

The concept behind a “castle doctrine” is that a man’s home is his castle and if a bad guy is stupid enough to try and enter a man’s home to do him or his family harm, the man should have the right to blow the intruder into kingdom come (provided the homeowner is licensed to carry).

Oddly enough, Texas didn’t have such a law. In fact, the legal expectation was that someone under attack in their own home had a “duty” to retreat before using deadly force.

Finally, Lone Star State lawmakers came to their senses and passed legislation that becomes effective September 1st. From now on, there will be no “duty to retreat” and men (and women) can defend themselves.

But not every elected official in Texas voted for this legislation. One of the spineless wonders who voted against the Texas law is a Democrat from Houston named Borris Miles.

Miles voted vote against House Bill 284, joining a small group of dissenters who amazingly saw fit to deny a Texan the ability to use lawful force against a criminal.

Now it completely baffles me how anyone with a lick of sense would try and make the ridiculous case that a person minding their own business in their home would have any “duty to retreat” before fending off a lowlife scum’s attack.

Based on what happened this week, Rep. Borris Miles agrees with me.

This is rich. While Miles was fixing a leak on the second floor of a home he’s building in the Houston area, he told police he heard a noise downstairs. When he went to investigate, he discovered two men trying to steal copper.

What do you suppose this anti-gun, bleeding heart liberal did when he confronted two bad guys trying to steal copper from him? Do you think he retreated?

He did not. In fact, I’ll give you a clue as to what Rep. Borris Miles did: “BANG!” That’s right, this hypocritical Democrat pulled out his gun and promptly shot one of the copper burglars.

Now as someone who also had a new construction burglarized by copper thieves, I can relate to the anger and frustration a homeowner feels over some meth-head stealing copper while one is trying to build a new house. But the last time I checked, most people -- and certainly few Democrats – wouldn’t consider copper thievery a capital offense.

Yet here is a man who evidently felt comfortable voting against giving Texans the right to defend themselves while thumbing his nose at his own vote and blasting away at the bad guys.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Incidentally, the guy Miles shot is going to live. Perhaps his shot was as shaky as his vote, he hit the thief in the leg.

Bearing in mind that the new “Castle Doctrine” law doesn’t take affect until Sept 1st, I wonder if Borris Miles might face criminal charges for shooting a guy in his own house?

The only thing more delicious than witnessing yet another Democrat’s rank hypocrisy would be to see a legislator go to jail for breaking a law that he voted to uphold.

Why do some of these clowns make it so easy?

[ariscus99 1]

In one day, the socialist-democrats did two contradictory things.

First, pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg decided to limit the pay of some top execs. Fox News: “The 25th through the 100th top earners at Citigroup, GMAC, American International Group and General Motors also must take more than half their compensation in stock, and at least half must be delayed for three or more years, said Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s Special Master for Executive Compensation.”

Second, the dems in congress tried to pass a huge increase in the allowed level of national debt! Fox News: “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that Congress needs to raise the limit by at least $1.8 trillion. In response, nearly 50 Republicans in the House have co-sponsored a bill that would make it harder for Congress to raise that ceiling — which is currently set at $12.1 trillion.” So it apparently is bad for the evil corporations to spend, spend, spend and pay big salaries and fly on their evil corporate jets…while at the same time it apparently is good for the great democrat congressmen to spend, spend, spend and earn their big salaries and fly on government corporate jets.

Hypocrisy anyone?

[ariscus99 1]

In recent weeks, we have witnessed liberals in the highest level of government sanctimoniously defend terrorists who kill us while persecuting those who defend us from murderous attacks. In an effort to understand this reversal of good and evil, it has become a cliché to call liberals crazy. But while supremely hypocritical, liberalism is not insane. It is a highly adaptive ego device that enables people to violate commitments, vilify those who are true to their faith, and avoid personal sacrifice while feeling great about themselves. The only defense against hypocrisy is self-knowledge, but the politics, spirituality, and morality of liberalism are well-constructed firmaments of self-delusion.

The United States was founded in a Judeo-Christian theocentrism that is informed by scripture and assumes a personal God who hears prayers and grants forgiveness for sin. Theocentrism provides stable laws and settled moral codes.

In the mid-twentieth century, an unorganized, reactive spiritual orientation arose -- egocentrism -- which has become the dominant moral framework in our nation. This orientation says there may or may not be a God, so each individual must follow his or her own conscience and ethical values. Theocentrism has been promulgated by traditional religion. Egocentrism has mainly been introduced through mass media, educational power structures, and more recently by reoriented religions.

A theocentrist lives out the question, What does God say is best to do? An egocentrist lives out the question, What do I think is best to do? Here is the central difference between theocentrism and egocentrism: Living for God is largely a conscious, intentional process, informed by a written scripture that presupposes the need for repentance.

Egocentrism, on the other hand. largely proceeds below the level of conscious awareness through a series of experiments in self-directed living. It presupposes constant change -- and who is there to repent to? The consciousness-unconsciousness dichotomy may be shown by a behavioral exemplar. Theocentrists are always praising and blessing God, saying things like, "Praise the Lord," "so help me, God," and "Insh Allah." But for egocentrists, it's not so clear whom to thank. They don't proclaim "Praise Me!" "Me have Mercy!" or "May it please Myself!"

This difference explains the gratitude gap between liberals and conservatives. Thanking God is central to theocentrism. Thanking oneself is more complicated, and that is why self-esteem is all important in egocentrist spirituality.

The individual ego is a PR shill. Its job is not to find the truth but to organize life and win every game from the viewpoint of the all-important I. And just as the eye cannot see itself, the ego cannot be honest with itself. It always buys its own pitch. The individual ego is the strongest force in the phenomenal world because of its capacity for self-delusion. Toward that end, there is no form of self-service that the ego cannot transform into a sense of moral superiority. This is why we see a case like Representative Patrick Kennedy, who claims to be Catholic, yet facilitates mortal sin by endorsing "the right to choose." His ego, not Christ or scripture, is in the driver's seat. But the ego is so enthralling that Mr. Kennedy may not even know it. Though hypocritical, his public position is not crazy. In fact, it is functional and advantageous in a world dominated by egocentrism.

The spiritual orientation of theocentrism generally provides the moral framework for conservatism, and the spiritual orientation of egocentrism generally provides the moral framework for liberalism. When a theocentrist is hypocritical, it is because he has knowingly violated the tenets of his faith, and this transgressor tends to be secretive because he knows he has broken his own laws. That is the purpose of scriptural codification: it lets you know when you are wrong. And that is why there is no equivalent written code of behavior in egocentrist spirituality. Egocentrism has no written moral law because a written code would in itself violate the process of self-directed experimentation.

Because of the way the ego works, the politics of liberalism are bulwarks of hypocrisy and self-deception. But liberals are often not secretive, but just clueless. They tend to be "in-your-face" hypocrites because they are obeying the ego, which tells them that ultimately, they cannot be wrong. This is why liberals speak of tolerance when they really mean approval. Tolerance is based on disapproval. It is a conscious, meditative process of non-interference with something disapproved of. Tolerance is a compromise that the ego cannot make, because the ego is an on-off switch of self-interest.

The anti-American statements and policies of the Obama administration are the sacraments of two generations of ascendant egocentrism in our country. The ego is loath to admit, "I don't want to get my behind shot off in some war." No problem. Liberal academia has given us fifty years of indoctrination in the many reasons America is not worth it. And here's some good ego-logic: The reality that "it takes courage to knowingly bring a Down Syndrome child into the world" becomes "Sarah Palin is confused and slutty." Eric Holder calls the American people cowards and then casts self-confessed terrorist murderers as civil rights victims. Khalid Sheik Mohammed becomes the new Rosa Parks.

But none of this is crazy. It is adaptive. For example, in the case of Mr. Holder, his deference to admitted terrorists is an ingenious, though probably mostly unconscious, ego-projection of himself as a civil rights hero while he breaks his oath to defend the Constitution from foreign enemies. Liberal hypocrisy is not insanity, it is pretersanity, a powerful tactic of self-absolution and a way to become rich, admired, and powerful while supposedly "fighting for the little guy," or to exhort others to self-sacrifice while doing none of that yourself.

The notion, now commonly posited in liberal media, that the Fort Hood terrorist Major Hassan is mentally ill is another unconscious capitulation to egocentrism. It is the worst form of hypocrisy to make excuses for somebody who takes all of the benefits of military service and then murders his defenseless fellow soldiers.

Theocentrism and egocentrism are opposite and irreconcilable. One revels in the new moral entitlements, the other sees a mad world portending the end of days. A theocentrist will not give up God, and an egocentrist cannot give up himself.

American society is being split in two. It is also a testament to our rule of law and compassionate character that we still hold onto our pluribus unum. How will it all end? Let's use a psychological assessment technique. Complete the following sentence:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

In one day, the socialist-democrats did two contradictory things.

First, pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg decided to limit the pay of some top execs. Fox News: “The 25th through the 100th top earners at Citigroup, GMAC, American International Group and General Motors also must take more than half their compensation in stock, and at least half must be delayed for three or more years, said Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s Special Master for Executive Compensation.”

Second, the dems in congress tried to pass a huge increase in the allowed level of national debt! Fox News: “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that Congress needs to raise the limit by at least $1.8 trillion. In response, nearly 50 Republicans in the House have co-sponsored a bill that would make it harder for Congress to raise that ceiling — which is currently set at $12.1 trillion.” So it apparently is bad for the evil corporations to spend, spend, spend and pay big salaries and fly on their evil corporate jets…while at the same time it apparently is good for the great democrat congressmen to spend, spend, spend and earn their big salaries and fly on government corporate jets.

Hypocrisy anyone?

from open congress.org

Bill Containg Debt Ceiling IncreaseNew Debt Ceiling Level EnactedNumber of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)$14,294,000,000,000 0 111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)$12,394,000,000,000 1 111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)$12,104,000,000,000 2 110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)$11,315,000,000,000 33 110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)$10,615,000,000,000 34 110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)$9,815,000,000,000 26 109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)$8,965,000,000,000 51 108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)$8,184,000,000,000 50 108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)$7,384,000,000,000 50 107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)$6,400,000,000,000 31 105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997$5,950,000,000,000Passed by unanimous consent; 55 Republicans vote in favorBill Containg Debt Ceiling IncreaseNew Debt Ceiling Level EnactedNumber of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)$14,294,000,000,000 0 111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)$12,394,000,000,000 1 111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)$12,104,000,000,000 2 110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)$11,315,000,000,000 33 110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)$10,615,000,000,000 34 110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)$9,815,000,000,000 26 109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)$8,965,000,000,000 51 108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)$8,184,000,000,000 50 108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)$7,384,000,000,000 50 107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)$6,400,000,000,000 31 105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997$5,950,000,000,000Passed by unanimous consent; 55 Republicans vote in favorBill Containg Debt Ceiling IncreaseNew Debt Ceiling Level EnactedNumber of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)$14,294,000,000,000 0 111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)$12,394,000,000,000 1 111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)$12,104,000,000,000 2 110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)$11,315,000,000,000 33 110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)$10,615,000,000,000 34 110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)$9,815,000,000,000 26 109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)$8,965,000,000,000 51 108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)$8,184,000,000,000 50 108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)$7,384,000,000,000 50 107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)$6,400,000,000,000 31 105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997$5,950,000,000,000Passed by unanimous consent; 55 Republicans vote in favor

The republicans consistently have voted to raise the debt limit in the past under many administrations, it is only under Pres. Obama that they vote no on everything.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

In recent weeks, we have witnessed liberals in the highest level of government sanctimoniously defend terrorists who kill us while persecuting those who defend us from murderous attacks.If by "defend" do you mean using bush's approach to mirandize the terrorist? It has been successfully used hundreds of time. Who have we persecuted who has defended us from murdereous attacks? In an effort to understand this reversal of good and evil, it has become a cliché to call liberals crazy. But while supremely hypocritical, liberalism is not insane. It is a highly adaptive ego device that enables people to violate commitments, vilify those who are true to their faith, and avoid personal sacrifice while feeling great about themselves. The only defense against hypocrisy is self-knowledge, but the politics, spirituality, and morality of liberalism are well-constructed firmaments of self-delusion.

The United States was founded in a Judeo-Christian theocentrism that is informed by scripture and assumes a personal God who hears prayers and grants forgiveness for sin. Theocentrism provides stable laws and settled moral codes.

In the mid-twentieth century, an unorganized, reactive spiritual orientation arose -- egocentrism -- which has become the dominant moral framework in our nation. This orientation says there may or may not be a God, so each individual must follow his or her own conscience and ethical values. Theocentrism has been promulgated by traditional religion. Egocentrism has mainly been introduced through mass media, educational power structures, and more recently by reoriented religions. Thecentrism then does not allow for personal freedom to choose what to believe or not believe about God and religion. I thought you conservatives were all about freedom and complain that the Obama administration is somehow taking them away.

A theocentrist lives out the question, What does God say is best to do? An egocentrist lives out the question, What do I think is best to do? Here is the central difference between theocentrism and egocentrism: Living for God is largely a conscious, intentional process, informed by a written scripture that presupposes the need for repentance.

Egocentrism, on the other hand. largely proceeds below the level of conscious awareness through a series of experiments in self-directed living. It presupposes constant change -- and who is there to repent to? The consciousness-unconsciousness dichotomy may be shown by a behavioral exemplar. Theocentrists are always praising and blessing God, saying things like, "Praise the Lord," "so help me, God," and "Insh Allah." But for egocentrists, it's not so clear whom to thank. They don't proclaim "Praise Me!" "Me have Mercy!" or "May it please Myself!"

This difference explains the gratitude gap between liberals and conservatives. Thanking God is central to theocentrism. Thanking oneself is more complicated, and that is why self-esteem is all important in egocentrist spirituality.

The individual ego is a PR shill. Its job is not to find the truth but to organize life and win every game from the viewpoint of the all-important I. And just as the eye cannot see itself, the ego cannot be honest with itself. It always buys its own pitch. The individual ego is the strongest force in the phenomenal world because of its capacity for self-delusion. Toward that end, there is no form of self-service that the ego cannot transform into a sense of moral superiority. This is why we see a case like Representative Patrick Kennedy, who claims to be Catholic, yet facilitates mortal sin by endorsing "the right to choose." His ego, not Christ or scripture, is in the driver's seat. But the ego is so enthralling that Mr. Kennedy may not even know it. Though hypocritical, his public position is not crazy. In fact, it is functional and advantageous in a world dominated by egocentrism.

The spiritual orientation of theocentrism generally provides the moral framework for conservatism, and the spiritual orientation of egocentrism generally provides the moral framework for liberalism. When a theocentrist is hypocritical, it is because he has knowingly violated the tenets of his faith, and this transgressor tends to be secretive because he knows he has broken his own laws. That is the purpose of scriptural codification: it lets you know when you are wrong. And that is why there is no equivalent written code of behavior in egocentrist spirituality. Egocentrism has no written moral law because a written code would in itself violate the process of self-directed experimentation.

Because of the way the ego works, the politics of liberalism are bulwarks of hypocrisy and self-deception. But liberals are often not secretive, but just clueless. They tend to be "in-your-face" hypocrites because they are obeying the ego, which tells them that ultimately, they cannot be wrong. This is why liberals speak of tolerance when they really mean approval. Tolerance is based on disapproval. It is a conscious, meditative process of non-interference with something disapproved of. Tolerance is a compromise that the ego cannot make, because the ego is an on-off switch of self-interest.

The anti-American statements and policies of the Obama administration are the sacraments of two generations of ascendant egocentrism in our country.And those anti-american statements would be...? The ego is loath to admit, "I don't want to get my behind shot off in some war." No problem. Liberal academia has given us fifty years of indoctrination in the many reasons America is not worth it. Which ones did cheney use to get his 5 deferments?And here's some good ego-logic: The reality that "it takes courage to knowingly bring a Down Syndrome child into the world" becomes "Sarah Palin is confused and slutty." Eric Holder calls the American people cowards and then casts self-confessed terrorist murderers as civil rights victims. Khalid Sheik Mohammed becomes the new Rosa Parks.She was a hero, who is he a hero to other than those who support jihadism?

But none of this is crazy. It is adaptive. For example, in the case of Mr. Holder, his deference to admitted terrorists is an ingenious, though probably mostly unconscious, ego-projection of himself as a civil rights hero while he breaks his oath to defend the Constitution from foreign enemies. Liberal hypocrisy is not insanity, it is pretersanity, a powerful tactic of self-absolution and a way to become rich, admired, and powerful while supposedly "fighting for the little guy," or to exhort others to self-sacrifice while doing none of that yourself.

The notion, now commonly posited in liberal media, that the Fort Hood terrorist Major Hassan is mentally ill is another unconscious capitulation to egocentrism. It is the worst form of hypocrisy to make excuses for somebody who takes all of the benefits of military service and then murders his defenseless fellow soldiers.

Theocentrism and egocentrism are opposite and irreconcilable. One revels in the new moral entitlements, the other sees a mad world portending the end of days. A theocentrist will not give up God, and an egocentrist cannot give up himself.

American society is being split in two. It is also a testament to our rule of law and compassionate character that we still hold onto our pluribus unum. How will it all end? Let's use a psychological assessment technique. Complete the following sentence:

I will copy my first post, because you obviously didn't read it or chose to ignore it.

Republican hypocrisy - where to start?

Let's start with the handling of terrorists:

The republicans have been relentless in their criticism of Pres. Obama's handling of terrorists.

- In 2009, we caught twice as many terrorists as did bush.

- Only the terrorists released from Gitmo by bush have rejoined terrorists groups.

- bush tried hundreds of terrorists in civilian courts while Pres. Obama is criticized by republicans for doing so.

- bush took 10 days to respond to Richard Reed (the shoe bomber) but Pres. Obama was criticized for taking 3 days to speak about the Christmas day underwear bomber.

- bush tried the shoe bomber in civilian court but Pres. Obama is criticized for wanting to try the underwear bomber in civilian court.

- the republicans leaders criticized the underwear bomber being mirandized but were told on Christmas Day that the FBI had the underwear bomber in custody. They claim they didn't know the FBI would mirandize him!! The shoe bomber was mirandized within 5 minutes.

The Obama administration has an excellent track record with regard to handling terrorist and terrorism. No apologies to the hypocritcal conservatives is needed.

Oh, and BTW, just in case you missed it, we captured the #2 Taliban terrorist in Afghanistan. Big capture. Very important. Better tell Beck because he confused it with Al-Qaeda.

[BJean 16]

airbus: you have forgotten to cite whom you're quoting in these just previous posts. I can tell they aren't your words. There aren't as many misspelled words or words used incorrectly as when you're posting from your heart.

Please reveal your sources, or don't expect folks to bother reading the stuff.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Using the teleprompter:

At the republican "Obama Bashfest" (a/k/a CPAC) both Jim DeMint (who wants healthcare to be Pres. Obama's waterloo) and Marco Rubio criticized Pres. Obama's use of the teleprompter. How do we know this? Because they were reading it off of - you guessed it - a teleprompter.

[phil1336 0]

If Jesus has been quoted...".Let He without Sin, Cast The First Stone" then let Senator Jim DeMint from SC be the first Republican Senator to Publicly announce that he is opting out and removing his family and himself from any further participation in the FEHBP Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. No (Public Option), its NOT available for the general public, only Federal Employees are eligible to join and participate! Show the American Public your contempt for Universal Health Coverage by eliminating yourself from the so called "Cadillac Premium Health Plan" and join the un-insured! And, since your obviously against any form of Single Payer Health Insurance, I`m sure you will decline and Opt Out of both Social Security and Medicare when your eligible at 65! Of ALL the so called Deadly Sins, non are worst then Hypocrisy! A Pox on this "elitist" scum!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

In recent weeks, we have witnessed liberals in the highest level of government sanctimoniously defend terrorists who kill us while persecuting those who defend us from murderous attacks.

Really? Read on:

from dailykos; Two senior Taliban leaders have been arrested in recent days inside Pakistan, officials said Thursday, as American and Pakistani intelligence agents continued to press their offensive against the group’s leadership after the capture of the insurgency’s military commander last month.

Afghan officials said the Taliban "shadow governors" for two provinces in northern Afghanistan had been detained in Pakistan. Mullah Abdul Salam, the Taliban’s leader in Kunduz, and Mullah Mir Mohammed of Baghlan were captured about two weeks ago in a raid on a house in Akora Khattack, according to a leader at the Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqaniya madrasa there.

NYTimes.com

So here is your Talking Point for the Day on National Security if a wingnut says Obama isn't doing everything he can to keep America safe.

President Obama has caught more Taliban Leaders in 1 month than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years

The arrests come on the heels of the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s military commander and the deputy to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the movement’s founder. Mullah Baradar was arrested in a joint operation by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s military intelligence agency.

NYTimes.com

I have taken to heart the advice that Progressives should be just as loud about good news as we are about bad news, so, in that spirit, I gladly give you this GOOD NEWS - and no, it's not good news for John McCain.

The Taliban played a central role in the planning of 9/11 and the training of the terrorists who launched that attack. The Taliban harbored Osama Bin Laden and American troops had Bin Laden cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan when then President George W. Bush and President Dick Cheney decided to let Bin Laden go so they could invade Iraq for Oil and declare mission accomplished.

At the time it was a stupid decision that cost America the lives of our troops, plunged Iraq into chaos and drove America's debt through the roof, and most Americans do not know this.

So let's spread the news. There is a new Sheriff in town, and we are finally doing the job we were supposed to do, the job that Republicans ignored for years and years.

And now, under a new President, we are beginning to finally bring the Taliban to justice.

More proof that ELECTIONS MATTER.

2010 is upon us, with mid term elections only months away. It is time for EVERYONE who is opposed to the lunacy and corruption of Conservative governance to GRAB A MOP. It is time for us to FIGHT BACK.

That starts with messaging. So let's spread the message far and wide, and let's Yell Louder when we do it.

So spread the GOOD NEWS. Make it viral. Shout it from the frigging rooftops, and Yell Louder!

President Obama has caught more Taliban Leaders in 1 month than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years

Put that in your coal pipe and smoke it, wingnuts.

[pattygreen 5]

The republicans consistently have voted to raise the debt limit in the past under many administrations, it is only under Pres. Obama that they vote no on everything.

You just don't get it. It has become apparent to the American people, who have finally opened their eyes over the last year or two, that we are drowning in our debt! This is their reason for wanting Washington to STOP the spending.( It's not cause he's black, although I know that's what you want it to be.) Debt kinda sneaks up on you. When it begins to hurt, (lost jobs, high prices for everything, taxes, etc.)then people take notice and decide to DO something about it. Things weren't so bad for the people while Bush was president. It wasn't until right before Obama got elected that things started 'feeling' bad for the people. Obama excellerated the problem with his spending sprees at a time when he should have been doing some reigning in of the pocket book. Now things are terribly bad, and what does he avoid doing? Cuts. Stopping the spending. No. he doesn't want to anger anyone right before an election. If he cut this program or that program and he didn't give so and so their grand gifts, he would anger some people. The people can't have it both ways. They must give up some of their 'free' handouts in order to reign in the spending and get this nation out of the hole.

[phil1336 0]

Anybody got a Vote for Joe Lieberman for President in 2012 I can acquire? Sounds like a (Dream) ticket to me! Maybe Joe`s wife "Hadassa" can show Sarah how to use Pond`s Cold Creme to remove those notes and talking points off the palms of her hands too. Thats soooo hot an feminine to have scribble on your hands....kinda like a Tea-Bagger Biker chick, huh?

[phil1336 0]

Don`t you love that Bush Billboard ad with his dumb ass deer in the headlights stare asking....Miss Me Yet? Like missing a boil that you recently had lanced!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The republicans consistently have voted to raise the debt limit in the past under many administrations, it is only under Pres. Obama that they vote no on everything.

You just don't get it. It has become apparent to the American people, who have finally opened their eyes over the last year or two, that we are drowning in our debt! This is their reason for wanting Washington to STOP the spending.( It's not cause he's black, although I know that's what you want it to be.) Debt kinda sneaks up on you. When it begins to hurt, (lost jobs, high prices for everything, taxes, etc.)You're the one who doesn't get it and honestly I am getting weary of trying to explain it to you. The bank bailout started under BUSH was necessary to save the financial institutions from collapsing. Our economy runs on money being available in the form of loans. Banks weren't loaning money which means small businesses couldn't meet payroll or buy inventory. The second part of the spending was the stimulus which I have explained over and over again - that it helped save or create jobs but more importantly stopped out economy from going into a second depression. Our unemployment would be 15% without it. The economy has turned around. Fewer jobs are being lost, and the GNP is growing. This spending was an investment in our future. When the economy improves, more jobs will be created and that is what helps the economy and to reduce the deficit.then people take notice and decide to DO something about it. Things weren't so bad for the people while Bush was president.Speak for yourself. 4300 troops lost their lives, I think that's pretty bad - for them and their families. And let's not forget that bush didn't pay for any of his programs and turned a surplus into a deficit. It wasn't until right before Obama got elected that things started 'feeling' bad for the people. Obama excellerated the problem with his spending sprees at a time when he should have been doing some reigning in of the pocket book.When the economy is on the verge of collapse is NOT the time to rein in spending - any economist can tell you that. The deficit does matter but not while our economy is hurting. And passing a comprehensive healthcare bill will help LOWER our deficit. Now things are terribly bad, and what does he avoid doing? Cuts. Stopping the spending. No. he doesn't want to anger anyone right before an election. If he cut this program or that program and he didn't give so and so their grand gifts, he would anger some people.I guess that's why Pres. Obama just created a bipartisan deficit reduction panel (by executive order)to look at ways to reduce the deficit - because the "party of no" republicans who were for this panel and sponsored it voted no when Pres. Obama was for it. The people can't have it both ways. They must give up some of their 'free' handouts in order to reign in the spending and get this nation out of the hole.

Let's start with the free handouts to corporations - called corporate welfare. I have previously posted what this costs us and I am all in favor of doing that and making it very costly to them if they move jobs overseas.