SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (189)2/1/2004 7:15:30 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
The truth about modern day America
01/29/2004 11:13

If there is one axiom to define life under the Bush dictatorship, it is that America is dominated and manipulated by individuals without principles, who automatically denounce the policies and practices of people or political parties they oppose, yet openly embrace commensurate policies and practices that serve their own political agendas or selfish interests.

In fact, the hypocrisy of modern day America reminds me of an event that occurred in my youth.  I was playing pool with some friends in a neighborhood billiard hall when, around two o'clock in the morning, three sizable individuals walked in and proclaimed they were looking for some "action."  As they proceeded through the establishment, an older gentleman exiting the restroom had the misfortune of passing near them.  The tallest of the three intentionally shoved this man, then challenged him to a fight.

Thirty seconds later the bully lay battered and bleeding upon the floor. Yet, despite being the instigator of the fight, he still had the audacity (once he recovered his senses) to whine that he was a "minor," and thus it had been "unfair" to hit him.

This true life story is also symbolic of the bullying hypocrisy of America's so-called "conservative" movement, which persistently engages in dubious political tactics, yet cries "foul" when similar tactics are directly against it.

Recently, for example, many "conservative" critics expressed indignation over political ads submitted to Move On that compared George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler.  Yet this "conservative" outrage was conspicuously absent when right-wing commentator Ann Coulter equated television personality Katie Couric to Hitler's mistress Eva Braun, and when right-wing radio personalities routinely referred to former first-lady Hillary Clinton as "Hitlerly Clinton."  Radio propagandist Rush Limbaugh coined the phrase "femi-nazis" when describing the women's rights movement, and on the very day that cable television's right-wing propaganda networks (who call their bilge "news") were professing "outrage" over Bush/Hitler analogies, THE NEW YORK POST was running an article comparing Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels and Dean supporters to "Hitler's brownshirts."  Yet none of these individuals or groups equated with Nazism, besides Bush, have remotely come close to deceptively leading a nation into war, nor corruptly assumed power in defiance of the will of the majority.  In fact, according to THE VILLAGE VOICE, even the wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's partner in deceit, believes that Bush stole the 2000 election.

But perhaps nowhere is this hypocrisy more evident than in the right-wing's sycophantic defense of its favorite drug addict, Rush Limbaugh.  During the Clinton years, Limbaugh incessantly raved how even the president is not above the law.  Yet now that the law is targeting him, he wants to play the role of martyr.  Limbaugh also supported the deceptively named "Patriot Act," whose draconian provisions have destroyed many of the rights and freedoms true patriots have fought and died for, including the right to privacy.  But now that it is HIS right to privacy allegedly being violated, Limbaugh is suddenly ranting about unfairness.  Perhaps most egregiously, Limbaugh announced in 1995 that "Too many whites are getting away with drug use . . .  The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river."  Now predictably he is endorsing "treatment" over incarceration.

But perhaps the biggest reason the so-called "conservatives" have been allowed to get away with their lies and hypocrisies is because they have taken for granted the fact that, when attacking liberals, they are fighting opponents who have one hand tied behind their backs.  Liberalism, by its very essence, is a political philosophy encouraging people to expand beyond their self-centered worlds, to advocate humanity instead of hatred, to appeal to positive emotions instead of basest ones, and to put people before profits.  The reason dictator Bush endeavors to describe himself as a "compassionate conservative" is because the adjective "compassionate" is not automatically attributed to the word "conservative." Of course what Bush doesn't acknowledge is that his "compassion" only extends to rich, white people.

In liberalism, however, this compassion is implied, often to such an extent that a common political pejorative is the phrase "bleeding-heart liberal."  This ideology is so entrenched that some liberals have even expressed sentiments that Limbaugh should be treated with compassion.  But Abraham Lincoln once said, "Those who would deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."  Since Limbaugh has advocated the denial of freedom to drug offenders, then his freedom, if he is tried and convicted of drug offenses, should also be denied.

But what is even more contemptible and hypocritical than that bully in the billiard room are the cowards who instigate fights, then gutlessly sit back and watch others do the suffering and the dying.

I was given the first name of David after my uncle David,>Latest News
*
Russia Continues to Surpass Americans in the Space Race
* The truth about modern day America
* Powell: first lies, now arrogance
* World Economic Forum: Clearing up after Bush
* The End of Freedomwhom I never got to meet, was killed in the Battle of Midway during World War II.  His brother (also my uncle), survived the war, but could never conquer his feelings of guilt over living while David had died.  He lived the remainder of his life an alcoholic.

While this story is not unique, and there are countless other tales of suffering, pain and hardships caused by war and its aftermath, I think of it every time I see politicians, political commentators, and celebrities who have never served in the military glorify war--treating death and destruction like a video game, salivating over the ratings potential of warfare, and performing shows or concerts to "entertain or support the troops," so they can boast about their "patriotism," and/or promote their music on television talk shows.  The ideal of "supporting the troops" has often meant the reality of "exploiting the troops," and while these hypocrites get rich (some are even rewarded with their own "talk" shows), the young men and women they allegedly "support" continue to suffer and die.

Coulter once said that "Liberals are traitors."  But the Iraqi war and its aftermath have made it clear that "Liberals are Patriots."  Liberals chose to not simply talk about freedom, but to exercise it through dissent.  In fact many liberals exercised the greatest freedom of all, the freedom to think for themselves, and not blindly subscribe to Bush's "great lies," even though they knew his bloodlust and avarice could not be contained.  Liberals were sometimes penalized both economically and socially for their dissent, denied television roles, called "unpatriotic," and ridiculed, while those engaged in "flag-waving" profited immensely.  Liberals looked at the tax dollars being spent, and, more importantly, the young lives being lost, and recognized the folly of these resources being squandered by a thug endeavoring to exploit war to appease his father and enhance his political stature, by a venal vice- president lusting to increase the profits of companies where he has financial interests, and by a Secretary of State who, like a latter-day Judas, betrayed both the American people and the world by lying to the United Nations, all for a few fleeting years of power.  Yet, unlike Judas, none of these liars and hypocrites have demonstrated any remorse for their deeds.

Instead the populace is being bombarded with claims that "intelligence failures" were behind the failure to find "weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)" in Iraq.  I would agree.  But the intelligence failures resided in too many Americans blindly trusting the corruptly appointed Bush dictatorship, and the jingoistic and profit-driven media.  What a better nation America would be, and how differently it might be perceived throughout the world, if its military only responded to real threats, if its budget deficit was not spinning out of control, if millions of Americans did not have to fear every ache and pain because they have no health insurance, and if America's freedoms and rights were not held hostage by a megalomaniacal Attorney-General and a cowardly legal system exploiting the "war on terror" to covertly establish a police-state.  Unfortunately these realities have not yet sunk in as many Americans are experiencing an intrinsic defensive reaction to present day events--the reluctance to admit they've been conned.

Fortunately, there are still people who do have principles, whose denunciations against one political philosophy, party or candidate do not automatically infer endorsement of the other.  I say this to assure PRAVDA readers that if Al Gore were president and if he had undermined democracy, destroyed civil rights and liberties, and engaged in lies and deceptions to lead America into an unjust war, my criticisms would be identical.  In addition, PRAVDA has never suggested one idea for, nor censored one word from, my articles, and since I receive no compensation, other than the rewarding satisfaction of seeing my work in print, there are no monetary considerations to distort or influence my viewpoints.

In fact, one of the vilest acts performed by a politician, prior to the Iraqi war, was Bill Clinton's (a Democrat) failure or refusal to grant a pardon to Native-American activist Leonard Peltier, even though Clinton showed no compunction about pardoning friends and political cronies.  Through this failure or refusal, Clinton tacitly endorsed the fraudulent nature of America's criminal justice system, and continued to send the message that government agents and agencies are free to use perjury, intimidate witnesses, exploit racism, and fabricate evidence to obtain
convictions.

A few years ago, an excellent movie called THE USUAL SUSPECTS was released.  The focus of the film revolved around whether a "master criminal" named Keyser Soze actually existed, or whether he was a myth.  During this debate one character remarked, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."  That may be true.  But the greatest trick the warmongers, hypocrites, liars and spoiled, silver-spooned brats--who profit from America's culture of nepotism, cronyism, and corruption--have ever pulled is convincing the world they are "conservatives."

 

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA.Ru



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (189)2/2/2004 2:00:35 AM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
BUSH BACKPEDDLING FASTER THAN LANCE ARMSTRONG
UPDATE - Bush seeks to quell election-year budget rebellion
Friday January 30, 7:37 pm ET
By Adam Entous
(Recasts with Republican reaction, adds details)
WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush came under pressure
from his fiscally conservative base on Friday to make deeper spending cuts after the
White House acknowledged its newly-enacted prescription drug plan would cost far
more than expected.

Facing the prospect of an election-year rebellion from members of his own Republican
party, Bush promised to halve the deficit over five years in spite of the additional cost.

The fiscal 2005 budget he will send to Congress on Monday will call for limiting
spending growth outside of defense and homeland security to 0.5 percent -- well below
the rate of inflation.

But his budget will also acknowledge that adding prescription drug coverage to
Medicare would cost at least $530 billion over 10 years -- 33 percent more than the
$400 billion Congress and the administration had promised when the law was approved
less than two months ago.

The higher estimate cast doubt on Bush's plans to cut the deficit in half by 2009. Many
budget experts -- including some of Bush's allies in Congress -- were already skeptical.

But Bush insisted: "The budget we'll submit on Monday does fulfill that promise that will
reduce the deficit in half." The White House expects this year's budget deficit to reach a
record $521 billion -- a potential election-year liability.

Arizona Republican Rep. Jeff Flake urged the president to take a harder line on
spending, and said he may be able to start getting lawmakers behind putting caps on
entitlement growth.

Conservatives urged Bush to back up his words by threatening to veto costly highway
and energy bills.

Traditional allies of the Republican administration, many fiscal conservatives opposed
the Medicare plan, in part because of the huge long-term cost of providing drugs to
seniors as the baby boom generation retires.

They seized on the White House's new cost estimate as vindication, and warned that
Bush could face an election-year backlash over spending.

"The real question is what did the president know and when did he know it," said
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful conservative
group.

He called the new cost estimate a "financial scandal."

The White House denied it intentionally underestimated the cost of the Medicare law to
pick up votes during the congressional debate.

Bush told reporters he learned about the new estimate two weeks ago, and asserted
that increased competition would eventually hold down the cost of Medicare.

While he said his 2005 budget would call for cutting the deficit in half over five years,
Bush put the onus on the Republican-controlled Congress to hold the line on spending.

"Congress is now going to have to work with us to make sure that we set priorities and
are fiscally wise ... I'm confident they can do that, if they're willing to make tough
choices," Bush told reporters.

Officials said the discrepancy between the drug cost estimates reflected long-standing
differences in assumptions the White House and Congress make about the program,
particularly how many people will participate and how much it will help to reduce drug
costs.

But conservatives were not appeased.

They said Bush has overseen a nearly 25 percent surge in spending over the last
three years -- the fastest pace since the Johnson administration of the mid-1960s.

Republican lawmakers who oversee the spending process could also rebel.

They warned this week that Bush's plan to freeze some federal spending could mean
painful cuts in programs ranging from veterans' health to medical research.

CC



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (189)2/2/2004 8:19:53 AM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
The 9-11 bombings Are Not Acts of War
The 9-11 bombings Are Crimes Against Humanity

ratical.org