So, it's the wrong place for *my* political views, but the right place
for views you think you agree with? Any voice you think you agree with
is ok here, but anything else is not?
Sad evidence of how closed minded we have become....
Charlie
russ kinne wrote:
>
> Yes, Charlie, this IS the wrong place for your political views.
> Glad you realize that fact. Hope you remember it.
> do not archive
>
> On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> possums wrote:
>>> At 10:46 PM 11/13/2009, you wrote:
>>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us".
>>>>
>>>> Pogo
>>> He Is Us
>>> .
>>> The announcement that the Obama Administration will try 9/11
>>> mastermind *Khalid Sheikh Mohammed* in New York City raises some
>>> important issues when it comes to what Congress has decided about
>>> detainees at Guantanamo Bay - for years & do you think they will
>>> really be tried in "New York" - No Way - move to a different
>>> venue,after 6 months - Moved to a new venue after 6 months, - moved
>>> again to maybe "American Somomo"?
>>>
>>> It was very instructive to see what issue President Obama emphasized
>>> before leaving on an eight day trip to Asia. Let's put it this
>>> way: it was not health care or Afghanistan or what ever ....
>>>
>>> The budget news for *_October_*, the first month of the new fiscal
>>> year, was simply mountains of red ink, as the deficit for just *one
>>> month* was $176.4 billion. that was on top of an all-time record of
>>> $1.42 trillion...
>>>
>>> In Washington the ACORN Administration is trying to find something
>>> to blame the Ft. Hood shootings on other than a radical Muslim
>>> hell-bent on killing infidels while shouting praises to his God.
>>> Since the House passed its health care reform bill in just one day,
>>> most Americans didn't have to become temporary experts on
>>> legislative procedure. .
>>> but this is not a political form - sorry Ted
>>
>> You know, a lot of this stuff gets perpetuated because no one
>> challenges it, and the people who repeat it never bother to check
>> their sources. I'm not much of an Obama fan, but I would like to know
>> where all the critics were when the same policies were carried out by
>> the previous administration.
>>
>> First, what *did* Obama emphasize before leaving? (I ask because
>> that's the kind of thing that can be highly subjective, depending on
>> whether you follow actual news outlets or Faux News....)
>>
>> It's helpful if you understand stuff, so you know whether you're
>> complaining about the right things.
>>
>> For starters, did you know that war spending has *never* been
>> included in any budget, until now? That's one area of spending that
>> all previous administrations have attempted to hide from the public.
>> While I didn't vote for Obama, at least I can give him credit for
>> having the gonads to put the costs out front. The previous bunch of
>> cowards (I believe that Chicken Hawks is the preferred term) tried to
>> hide the human cost, too, by forbidding news coverage of returning
>> casualties, even when the families requested it. If something really
>> is worth fighting for, it's worth telling those who are paying the
>> cost about the full price. It's also worth telling them the truth
>> about what we are really fighting for, which didn't happen this time,
>> just like it didn't happen 45 years ago in SE Asia.
>>
>> I don't like the 'stimulus' spending driving up the deficit, but I
>> didn't much care for the previous administration handing roughly the
>> same amount of money to banking mega-corps with no strings attached,
>> either. I don't recall you complaining when that happened; why not? I
>> don't recall you complaining when previous administrations, starting
>> with Reagan, chipped away at banking regulations, culminating with
>> the change in classification of derivatives from insurance to
>> 'investment' about 10 years ago, allowing (actually, *causing*) the
>> recent financial meltdown. If you liked what went on for the last
>> decade, why are you complaining about the what's happing now, which
>> is actually just a continuation of previous administrations' agendas?
>>
>> The comment about Acorn is somewhat irrelevant since the organization
>> had its financial teeth pulled (did you miss that?).
>>
>> I, probably like you, don't consider the house health bill much in
>> the way of reform, but it actually took quite a few more days than
>> one to pass. If you're trying to imply that the public was misled, or
>> facts were hidden, where was your voice during the past 8 years?
>> Again, I'm not endorsing current policies, but I'm informed enough to
>> know that what I'm seeing is nothing new. If we want health care
>> reform, it needs to start with the health industry itself, not
>> 'insurance'.
>>
>> BTW, did you know that the previous administration increased
>> entitlement spending ('welfare'), the prime frustration of
>> conservatives, more than any administration in history, even the
>> dreadful Johnson 'Great Society' period?
>>
>> I'm just saying that you should be mad for the right reasons, instead
>> of mad at who the propagandists tell you to be mad at.
>>
>> Yeah, this is the wrong place for this, but misleading info shouldn't
>> be allowed to stand just because it was posted to an improper forum
>> to start with.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
