Feb 19, 2015

Jeb Bush his own Man: Says NO THIRD INVASION of IRAQ.

CHICAGO (The Borowitz Report) — In an effort to distance himself from the legacy of his brother, George W. Bush, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will use a major foreign-policy speech on Wednesday to assert that, if elected President, he would harm the nation in completely different ways.

“A lot of people are looking at me and thinking that I’m just going to be a rerun of my brother,” Bush told reporters before the speech. “They are greatly underestimating my ability to create chaos and destruction in ways that are uniquely mine.”

As an example, Bush said, he was unlikely to invade Iraq for a third time, calling such an action “too derivative.”

“George already did it, and Dad did it before him,” he said. “Call it my independent streak, if you will, but I want to spawn some disasters of my own.”

To that end, Bush said that he and his foreign-policy team were already scanning the globe for “new and different places” where the United States could become involved in open-ended and pointless quagmires.

“I see boundless opportunities for the reckless and totally optional insertion of American military force,” he said. “No offense to my brother, but there were a few spots that George missed.”

Get news satire from The Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

Feb 13, 2015

More GROUND TRIPS to the MIDEAST, or should we ISOLATE ARAB COUNTRIES? A new definition of warfare.

Some Republicans want the US to go back into the mideast with ground troops.  IMAGINE... The party that never learns from its mistakes.

I think it's time we stop old methods that don't work...costing us lives and treasure to save people from themselves in the mideast.

America need to make it MORE clear than we have... that we will not go in and spill OUR blood over there since they won't spill theirs. Republican hawks are sending the worst possible message.   Saudi Arabia, a terrorist nation we've learned, loves to hire manual labor...they don' t actually 'work' there. They contract out everything.

Let's make it clear that they need to use the weapons we gave them to fight their own wars.

I'm appalled that when 3 innocent arabs were murdered, US Muslims responded with nationwide US style vigils...and went on TV lecturing Obama and the AG to do something about the 'hate crimes' that have been brewing since 9-11.

All this time, they've sat on their hands even in THIS country...and failed to express their outrage at their fellow Muslims who are destroying their whole part of the world, and swearing to convert or kill the rest of the non-muslim world.

They better get on the stick...if they don't do their part, on the next major attack, they'll find all NON-US CITIZEN arabs expelled, and our warplanes isolating them by destroying their airports...so they can't get over here except on camel-back.   Maybe we should do that in YEMEN, rather than send in the Marines.

Thats how the west should defend itself. Seal them OFF and let them kill each other. Why should WE?   And all this political correctness about our enemies?

We sure didn't do that with the Germans and the Japanese, did we?   And we knew THEN that not all of their citizens subscribed to genocide and world domination.  

Remember how the BUSHIES called anyone who criticized their oil war in Iraq as UNPATRIOTIC?     Let's not fall for it again when the PC police try to muzzle us about a religious war against the west     Moreover, MURDOUS RELIGIONS aren't SACRED!.    Let the extremists not hide behind the skirts of the peaceful among them.

This is how they fight too ...from the safety of their neighborhoods.

Barbara Boxer on the issue of more GROUND TROOPS in the mideast
Three months ago when Democrats were in control of the Senate, I voted in the Foreign Relations Committee for an AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) which authorized the President to continue working with a broad coalition to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL.
Unfortunately, that sensible AUMF never got a vote in the full Senate.
President Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another ground war.
This is the commitment the President made last June when he said, "I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again." He made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, "Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group."
That is why I was so surprised by the Administration's draft AUMF which would allow this Administration and the next one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no "enduring offensive ground combat operations."

At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing - and no one has defined the meaning of "enduring." At worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.
Even worse, some of my Republicans colleagues are now pressing to pass an AUMF with virtually no restrictions at all. Some of these same lawmakers have argued that the only way to defeat ISIL is to have American troops on the ground fighting against ISIL wherever they go.
It is stunning to me that so many lawmakers have forgotten the lessons of the Iraq War. After a disastrous war that was launched under false pretenses and claimed the lives of more than 4,000 American service members, the last thing America needs is another ground war in the Middle East.
Let me be clear: ISIL is a threat to the civilized world and we cannot allow its reign of terror to go unchecked. The group's vicious fighters kidnapped and murdered four innocent Americans. They savagely burned to death a Jordanian pilot, and killed two Japanese citizens and two British aid workers. They have slaughtered thousands of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, raped and enslaved thousands of women and girls, and trained children as young as 12 or 13 as fighters.

No civilized country should stand by in the face of this savagery. But this is not a battle America should be expected to wage alone.
When I was growing up, my parents taught me that I should never expect someone else to fight my battles for me. When ISIL comes after Americans and threatens our national security interests, we should fight back - and that is exactly what we are doing. But our partners in the region must also step up and fight their battle. They must be the combat boots on the ground - Iraqi boots, Kurdish boots, and moderate Syrian boots.
That is what the President is supporting now and his AUMF should reflect his strategy, which I believe is the right one. We are using our air power. We are providing critical intelligence. We are training and supporting our allies.
This strategy is already proving to be successful in halting ISIL's momentum by preventing the massacre on Mt. Sinjar and pushing ISIL out of the strategic city of Kobani. These efforts have been backed by more than 60 countries.
The AUMF that I voted for three months ago would allow us to continue this strategy. It would impose meaningful restrictions on U.S. ground combat forces while still providing the President flexibility to conduct critical missions such as search and rescue, targeted strikes against high-level targets, and training and support of regional forces.
If we have learned anything over the last decade, it is that we cannot commit tens of thousands of American service men and women to another limitless conflict in the Middle East. I am hopeful Congress will learn the lessons of these tragic foreign policy mistakes, which have cost our country so dearly. The AUMF that we pass must reflect these lessons.
Senator Boxer is the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and will be voting on the AUMF.

Feb 9, 2015


Guest Editorial
More and more, I am seeing memes and links pop up in my Facebook newsfeed talking about how so and so DESTROYED or ANNIHILATED or so-and-so in an EPIC segment on some program.

Let’s use the example of the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham to illustrate this point. Prior to the first question of the debate, I guarantee you that a whole bunch of writers on both sides of the ideological divide had at least the outline of their stories proclaiming an EPIC WIN for their guy ready to publish online as soon as the final word was spoken.

And what was accomplished? I’m sure that very few (if any) people changed their minds from watching the debate. And let’s face it, if you’re smart enough to actually understand science and not lousy arguments like “the Holy Bible says,” you probably already believed in evolution anyhow. Who benefited? Well, Ken Ham was given further media attention and made money for his Creation Museum, which is about as scientifically accurate as chemtrails or the claims that President Obama is really a shape-shifting alien from another dimension. Don’t laugh, there are people who actually believe in these easily debunked claims.

By giving them or Ken Ham any media primetime beyond what is absolutely necessary, it keeps their crazy ideas in the public eye which gives them additional credibility with their followers. In turn, this ensures that they, and the media, keep making money every time a story breaks about yet another “INSANE” pundit or political celebrity making an outrageous comment.

So here’s a list of the top 5 people we could either completely ignore or at least give as little attention to as possible.

5. Ted Nugent: If it wasn’t for the fact people really get worked up whenever he makes an asinine statement, Ted Nugent would be scratching out a meager retirement on royalties and doing the county fair circuit. “Cat Scratch Fever” is a half-decent classic rock song but that’s really about the only legacy he has worth talking about – so let’s just let his name only come up when we talk about washed up guitarists from now on.

4. Rush Limbaugh: As the years have gone by, Rush has found it necessary to make more and more incendiary statements in order to stay relevant in the dog-eat-dog media industry. The liberal outrage over his comments toward Sandra Fluke certainly cost him a lot of advertising, but it also gave him renewed relevance in the conservative AM radio industry. Basically, we in the liberal media extended his shelf life with the far right for at least a couple more years.

3. Ann Coulter: Ann Coulter has made a living by, like Rush, saying things that get the liberal blogosphere angry. As a direct result of that anger, she gets celebrity status with conservatives. She’s never held political office and I’m pretty sure if we’d stop getting outraged every time she says something horrible, eventually she’d have to go back being a lawyer, which is actually a more respectable position than what she has now. Oh yeah, and enough with the transphobic remarks about her looks. After all, as liberals or progressives, we really should be above that.

2. Bill Maher: Yes, Bill Maher. I know a lot of people love his weekly show on HBO where he routinely berates conservatives and talks about how dumb religion is. However, Bill is a complete hypocrite for bashing people for believing in God because there is no scientific proof of God, yet Bill is part of the anti-vaccine movement, which has zero trust in medical science. Oh, and he’s friends with Ann Coulter. Enough said.

1. Sarah Palin: Despite all of the stories and images floating around the internet, Sarah Palin isn’t a completely blithering moron. Yes, she says dumb things (a lot of dumb things), but that’s because her audience loves it. The more she says stuff like “well golly, ya know, what good Americans need to do is rise up and take back their country from Obama and his socialist death panels. You betcha!” the more the idiots who take her seriously love it. Seriously, what’s more ‘Murica than getting in your gas-guzzling SUV complete with your Chinese-made “America, Love It Or Leave It” and “Show Us The Birth Certificate” stickers and heading to the local Wal-Mart for her latest book signing where you fork over your government entitlement Social Security check for another one of her cheesy books?

 If you really want these people to go away, stop talking about them unless absolutely necessary. When your weird uncle who always sends you those emails with “FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW” in the subject line posts something about Benghazi or some weird story about Obama implanting RFID chips, don’t engage them.

Let’s not descend into the pig pen of sexist and transphobic comments, no matter how disgusting someone’s politics and remarks are. If we can’t do that, then we’re no better than them. We need a national political discussion with less stupid, vitriolic commentary that is designed to make money and keep people divided. Ignoring people like these grifters and political side show freaks is the first place to start.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/5-people-liberals-need-stop-paying-attention/

Feb 8, 2015

Definitive answer: Why Republicans want smaller government!

James Carville:  Republicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops:  it's easier to get away with murder."

Feb 5, 2015

ANOTHER RANT on what's wrong with America...and especially the GOP that keeps going to the DARK SIDE!

I just don't understand why so many politically aspiring people are attracted to the conservative party and seem dedicated to bringing the country down!

Why do so many go to the dark side? I always thought contemporary thinking was to be open minded and tolerant...since the 60s.

To make the country BETTER!

But there are SO MANY old testament, do the crime so do the time people around here. Wanting to disassemble public policies and progress to help citizens in order to help business enterprise?   To go BACKWARDS!  Sigh.

Why don't people realize we citizens voluntarily pay taxes to accomplish social objectives... defense, consumer protection, transportation, safety, roads and bridges, nuclear and pollution regulation...all the stuff we want the government to organize and CONTRACT OUT to private enterprise? Why don't they get that lots of businesses enjoy the government as our representative to raise the money and then hire them to accomplish our group goals?

Where do they learn this fearfulness? Religious, rule oriented education? Strict parenting? Preoccupation with money and profit? Or ignorance of what virtues actually are?   For a Christian country, it sure seems like today's Christians must have been slow readers...never got past Deuterotomy' sex rules, to get all the way to Jesus' message about forgiveness.
Why do they fear government but not unfair corporate business practices?   Do you want your meat inspected or DON'T you?  Utilities dumping goo into drinking water rivers or not?   Govt forcing companies to clean up their pollution or not?    Forcing BP to clean up the beaches after a major oil spill in the Gulf....OR NOT?     Bad seatbelt recalls for automakers or NOT?   Defective child carriers?   Chinese lead paint in toys?  Just want do you want gumment to do or to NOT do? 

Liberty that so many claim a virtue, isn't about adhering to rules or having the right to cheat people. It's the opposite, so long as you cause no harm to others. Freedom to do what you want without so many rules.

The business rules are decided by us all to keep the greedy from ripping us off.
But they're also over-policing us individually...while our gumment is not policing the police.  Doesn't the idea of TOO FRIENDLY prosecutors not bother you?

Why are they looking the other way at citizen abuse?  It's a huge issue and blacks know it the most.  Yeah we whites who drive nice cars aren't hassled...but what about charges for driving or WALKING WHILE BLACK?   Does that not offend your sense of justice?  Doesn't it make sense that the Bill of Rights should protect us from heavy handed police doing their usual 'stop and frisk?'

One wonders how police managed to escape 9th grade civics class and their lessons on the Bill of Rights!  Maybe cops need to have annual continuing education credits to remind them, so they must be accredited to police us... like medical people who ALSO have life and death control over us?

Congress?   Anyone, anyone?

Nixon's War on Drugs and the prison/legal industry.  Imprisoning the drug addicted with a lifelong record, rather than treating them.   Some drug courts get it but other's don't!  Obama needs to pardon them all for simple possession and remove their records so they can get on with life.

We send our addicted young people and liquor store robbers to prison for stealing fifty bucks but not white collar banksters for stealing fifty thousand? Who's in charge, anyway?

Seems like state legislators spend every waking moment passing laws restricting freedom and protecting the rule-makers and business establishments, and so often do it with a religious objective of self-righteousness. Yeah, I know, most of them get elected by YARD SIGNS, not by their beliefs. So we don't really know who we're voting for and the system makes it hard for us to find out.

Sadly the media doesn't cover legislative, school board, or city candidates BEFORE elections, only when they later stick their feet in their mouths. That's too late for us on election day. So much for media acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!

What is it about liberalism that is so evil since Reagan declared it so?

Do they not understand liberalism? Where's the misconception? Are liberals trying to correct the false attacks? If so, we're losing!

Do Americans really mostly want an ORDERLY society? We all know democracy is messy, but those in control really don't want the people meddling in public policy. High school civics teachers should have taught them better, I'd say.

Anybody understand these issues and want to offer an opinion without namecalling?

Feb 1, 2015

What REALLY happened at the Superbowl

Flag covers entire stadium at half time - The Onion.