It’s all about the divide and how you and I keep falling into line with it. Even those of us who see the reality of the false paradigm have long held, brain-washed ideologies that can be difficult to break. It is ingrained in us, but that doesn’t make it impossible to break.
Every President since Kennedy has been hand picked by the Trilateral Commission. As a matter of fact, every candidate on either Party that made a November election were members of the Trilateral Commission and hand-picked to be the POTUS. The Elitists within this group doesn’t give a rat’s ass who wins, for they are all owned puppets and will carry forward the agenda prescribed for them.
Kennedy was the last POTUS to not be a member of this group and see what it got him.
But the world gobbles it up. White against blackany color, Rep vs Dem, Abortionist against Right to life, Liberal vs conservative, sugar vs hugh fructose corn syrup, just name it and claim your “side”.
Fall into the divide and help keep it that way. Focus your efforts on the “side” you dislike the most, barrage the Tea Partiers with your “progressive” rage, defend the current POTUS in lieu of all the bald faced lies he said to get elected, because God knows John and the reTHUGlicans would be worse (worse than what, B’Man asks). You think Papa Walnuts (as my buddy Tengrain calls him) would “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? You think he would have pulled the troops out of Iraq just to send them to Afghanistan? You think he would have put Big Money and Big Banking in their place? Do you REALLY believe there would be ANY damned difference, except the color of their skin?
Seriously, in your need to protect and defend your favorite “side”, can you NOT see they are playing you like a fool? Have you not the mental ability to know when you are being conned? Being played as a chump?
We MUST stop this shit. We must disallow them control over our every thought.
And it doesn’t help to keep silent… to not rock the boat. To just get along.
Complacency is as bad as participation in their circus.
We MUST stand up and as a nation of patriots (not Sheople) and take back the Republic. I am telling you that one of the fastest ways is to never vote R or D again. Of course, you cannot allow the thieves to leave R or D and gain control of any other “Party”, as the Tea Partiers are wont to do.
We can start anew, but it will take a concerted effort that is NOT impossible. IF enough people feel the real pain.
I feel it.
What A Maroon…
I didn’t run this here when I mashed it up last January, due to its graphic content. Also, as liberal patriots, we don’t endorse burning US flags here at Crooks and Liars. We certainly understand why the rest of the world hated Bush though.
Bwahahaha. Liberal Patriots or Ass Kissing Sycophants?
Sorry, BlueGal, there isn’t a liberal or a patriot anywhere among you. Self deception may help you, but it doesn’t fool the rest of us.
My blog is neither “right”, nor “left”; “liberal”, nor “conservative”, “Dem”, nor “Rep”. You can tell that by how I hold them all accountable and would never defend the paradigm either wants me to defend, just for defense sake. You will read me attack the so-called “liberal” blogs that are nothing more than Ass-Kissing Sycophants, just as much as the “conservative” Ass-Kissing Sycophants.
I visited (by accident) a blog called The Provocateur, who’s owner (I assume), or at least one of the bloggers there (Mike Volpe) wrote the following article (I must say well written, altho he is truly far off base in his analysis. He was kind enough to let this gruff old bear share a few words with him that didn’t get too heated, but were poignant and significant for the paradigm he is trapped in. I am tryng desperately to speak with these people (being I am from SW TN and around many of these people daily). I am a conundrum for them and was even called a “Paulian” (when perhaps “Kucinichian” is a bit more apt). I like Paul for his anti-war conservatism, but Dennis is just as anti-war as Paul is, maybe more.
Check out the dialog at the end to see how it ended up and let me know if you think it is worth the time online (for in person, things are generally easier to express face to face).
I think it’s fair to say that the Obama presidency could be viewed as a controlled experiment on the worthiness of liberalism. With a very liberal president and overwhelming Democratic majorities, America is going to get a heavy dose of liberalism until at least 2010. (unless that is the President has a moderate epiphany as I suggested) Yet, if the president continues on his current path, he will also lead an imprint for history to judge liberalism in America.
So far, that judgment is incomplete but it’s also near an incomplete failure. We first started with the stimulus. On the economy, the president famously said, “only government has the resources to jolt our economy back into life”. He went on to say, “Tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems” and so totally rejecting the conservative fiscal solution to an economic recession. Nothing could be more liberal than seeing the government as the driver of economic growth. So, he passed his $787 billion stimulus. Its results so far have been well documented. Our unemployment rate is inching toward ten percent. Our deficit is nearing two trillion dollars and we’ve only spent one tenth of it. Meanwhile, the president took over several banks, two auto companies, and an insurance company. One way or another, the outcome of all this government intervention will also be a historical judgment on liberalism as well.
In fact, though, the greatest judgment against liberalism so far has been the president’s total inability to move his agenda going forward. In fact, despite overwhelming popularity, he barely got the stimulus through. Since then, he’s been totally impotent. Things don’t look to get any better. Cap and trade barely passed the House and the Senate has no plans to take it up anytime soon. Health care reform is in even worse shape. What sort of a judgment on liberalism is it if the liberal party has veto proof majorities in both chambers and still can’t pass a liberal agenda? One might ask if liberalism can’t pass now when will it pass.
Even lesser known policies like his $75 billion loan modification plan have been colossal failures. It’s important to point out again that this judgment is still incomplete. The economy could have a stunning turnaround and by this time next year our unemployment might be in the 6′s. GM and Chrysler might both be profitable by 2012 and the government will have sold its shares by then. In light of all of this, the president will then be able to pass sweeping health care, energy, and education reform. In 2012, we’ll be a liberal nation and history’s judgment on liberalism in America will be a glowing success. It’s still early and so the judgment is incomplete.
There will also be those liberals that will claim that the Bush presidency was a failing referendum on conservatism. That is a popular and totally inaccurate argument. There are some liberals that claim the tax cuts caused the recession we are in now. That’s just ludicrous. The tax cuts were enacted in 2001-2003. The recession didn’t occur for five years. The two have nothing to do with each other. Others proclaim that deregulation caused the meltdown. Of course, it wasn’t a lack of regulation but a lack of enforcement that lead to the crisis. It isn’t a conservative policy to look the other way on mass fraud, but a bad policy. In fact, most of Bush’s biggest problems came from embracing liberal ideas, big budget deficits, bloated government programs and bailouts. In fact, history’s judgment on conservatism should already be written with the wildly successful Reagan presidency. Yet, those with an agenda attempt to cloud the issue. Our economy came out of a recession because government shrank, regulations were slashed, and taxes were cut. Yet, some cloud the issue and leave that debate open still.
Make no mistake, by November 2010, and certainly November 2012, history will be ready to judge liberalism as well. While its currently incomplete, the judgment so far is a total failure.
B: If you think Obama is a liberal, you don’t know what the word means.
mike volpe: Enlighten me, how am I wrong? What does the word mean and who was and is a liberal if not Obama?
B: He voted lockstep with Bush’s policies and McCain during the POTUS run.
It is but one party with two perceived differences, but in actuality, it is the detriment to our country.
They do and act the same… both “liberal” and “conservative”, “right” vs “left” Dem vs Repub; and only the ignorant feed from it and agree.
This isn’t rocket science, yet too many are too gullible and/or brainwashed to know the difference. Much to my chagrin and the consternation of the Founding Fathers.
mike volpe: Bush wasn’t actually acting like much of a conservative in the last six months. Obama certainly didn’t vote in lock step the whole campaign. They did in the last couple months but that’s because Bush turned into a liberal in the last few months.
Come now. Bush was never conservative, except in the “shiny little object that gathers your attention” realm. Abortion (even tho he wasn’t die hard) is one of those wedge issues they use to divide us, but that is meaningless.
Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. This is no secret. He lied to get us into wars to propagate the war profiteers and the PNAC agenda.
Mike, what I am saying is that they have their kabuki dance that many Americans fall for. But by and large it is bogus.
There is but one really socially liberal in the all of congress: Dennis Kucinich (and Bernie Sanders). There is but one truly fiscally conservative in the all of congress and that is Paul.
Most every other dance the dance. Look at their votes, especially the leaders. Every so-called “liberal” leader voted lock-step on the most prescient issues. Every Republican leader voted lock step with war funding, eliminating rights left and right.
All of this is obvious.
Follow the money and the votes.
I view myself as fiscally conservative, but look how Bush spent the money. Sure, he cut back the taxes on the wealthy and look what that got us. But he spent money on ginned up and bogus wars.
I am Socially liberal, in that I believe that each and every American should be taken care of as our own. Especially medically.
They all bow to the Corptocracy, verging on Fascism. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. All the same, with just enough of the kabuki dance differences to keep Americans divided and fighting (thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Olberman and the like). They all play for their masters and we are too stupid to make them stop.
Obama spends money in the same fashion and look at his rhetoric regarding abortion and gay rights, etc. Telecom immunity. Patriot Act.
These are NOT liberal views, but just the portrayal of the dance.
Please stop watching the magician’s right hand, because it is the left hand that holds the secret. Americans are fixated on the sleight of hand.
Patriots will know the difference and speak to it.
Read my blog some and you will realize I cut NONE of them any slack because they are all full of malarkey.
Again, Opensecrets can show you so very much. Follow the money.
Thanks for your time…
mike volpe: Now it all makes sense. You’re a Paulian. That’s why you are so conspiratoria.
That doesn’t mean that Obama is NOT a liberal. Obama is still a iberal and frankly you proved it, you just seem to think that the rest of the government is also liberal. That’s true to some extent though not entirely. Of course, I wasn’t talk about the rest of government. I was only talking about Obama.
I am not “Paulian”, whatever you think that is. Do you deny that he is conservative? The MOST conservative in all the congress?
Look at the votes and where they get their money.
Let me explain something that you can’t seem to grasp, spending money on bogus wars does not make one “liberal”, it makes one a criminal.
War profiteering is that. A crime, and all of the past presidents, since Kennedy are guilty.
Allowing the Federal reserve to rule this country is not “liberal” or “conservative”, it is criminal.
Just as I said, you don’t know what the word means, except in the mind of Limbaugh.
I can enlighten you, but you may be too far gone.
That isn’t surprising, for it is rampant on both “sides” that fall for their show.
Enjoy the show Mike, but as for this real Patriot, I’m working to to fix things. I need your help, but not if you can’t shuck the brainwashing.
PS: If you will not delete these posts, I would love to link back to forward the discussion and to show that it is possible to have a decent conversation with a person like you. Few and far between.
OK, I tried and it shows that the ignorance runs so deep that it is likely impossible to have any meaningful discussion with such a personality:
mike volpe: By Paulian, I mean you voted for and supported Ron Paul. I am guessing you did given how cynical you are toward everyone except Paul. Yeah, Paul is a conservative except when it comes to earmarks for his district and then he’s very liberal. It’s funny how that works. He’s ideologically pure except when it comes to pork in his district and then he’s one of the most liberal folks in the Congress.
It’s easy to be ideologically pure when you’re a back bencher legislator your entire career and never lead to get a law passed. When you’re actually passing laws, you have to legislate and then it’s much more difficult. That’s the main difference between McCain and Paul. McCain actually got things done while in the Senate while Paul criticized everyone else and got nothing done. He is ideologically pure though. That’s why not a single law has his name on it.
As for war profiteering and the fed, I know the conspiracy theories. Libertarians are full of them and it’s corrosive to the philosophy.
ok, so get past the ‘f’ word and watch and listen to this. Yep– the hippies were right. lol
Don’t ya’ hate being right some times.
B’Man: Posted for my favorite “DFH” and friend, Lynda
Darlin, get better and post this stuff for yourself…
This is great!