I know that there are many here who blame the unions for destroying America, but one thing I would like to point out is that the union presents ordinary, or extraordinary, working people with the rare opportunity to experience a political role in their daily life. While some surely sour on this experience, it is, nonetheless, an important life enriching experience for many who, otherwise, would trudge on through the hand-to-mouth existence of wage labor without having any notion of a political life in this, the greatest democracy ever known to humanity.
And no, Greek historians, those were not better times.
TG - there is no denying, at all, that the number of people living in poverty, the number of people lacking education and the number of people living as "working poor" or bankrupted by illness has increased dramatically over the last 8 years - years in which the Bush administration essentially handed over welfare activities to religious groups.
So, it seems that the facts contradict your argument, that volunteerism and goodwill are an effective substitute for a comprehensive government program that focuses on the trinity of poverty - unemployment, education and health care. When people, usually Republicans, argue such anecdotal information on social welfare, they usually forget to factor in the 12 years of Republican retardation of social welfare from 1980 to 1992, and the 2000-2008 retardation era which, collectively, have devastated the lower income populations by removing all semblance of a security net.
"that guy" said "CPR - But what about every attack on US interests, embassies, and ships overseas during the Clinton years? Ah yes, not on US Soil, so they don't count, right?"
They do - and they were still not as large, in terms of US casualties, as the domestic terror attack. And "ships" - how many "ships" were attacked? I remember the USS Cole - which is one ship, what other ones are you talking about?
And to get back to the larger point here - the Clinton administration was deadly serious about Al Qaeda, and did as much as it could do over and above the Republican obstructionism in Congress, wherein the Republicans did not want to provide Clinton with ANY room to have a foreign military policy. Go back and read any of the archived news reports about foreign policy crises in the Clinton years and see how Republicans in Congress, time and again, refused to allow Clinton the room to have a more vigorous foreign military policy.
And let us not forget that Richard Clarke - the counter-terrorism intel expert on Al Qaeda - specifically warned the Bush administration in Jan 2001 to watch out for Al Qaeda attacks, and repeated these warnings over the subsequent months but never got a serious audience with the top officials.
So, there is where the divide lies - Bush supporters blame Clinton for allegedly not having done anything to stop Al Qaeda, while denying having played a role in tying Clinton's hands in Congress. At the same time, they deny Clinton administration's successes against Al Qaeda, and deny that they ever received any warnings about Al Qaeda, and deny that they were planning on a war in Iraq since before 9/11, and deny that the focus on a Iraq War in 2002 took away from the military needs in Tora Bora... and deny that their post-war Iraq plans, or lack thereof, led to a rise in terrorism worldwide...
The matter at hand, and the subject of my original comment, however, is whether the threat of domestic terrorism is a serious threat, and whether the news media should be more diligent in exposing the political opportunists who are exaggerating and reinforcing the irrational fears of their base - and I don't believe "that guy" had anything to say on that account.
I don't have a problem with paranoid people exercising their right of free speech, but there are paranoid people with guns out there who pick on these slogans and don't respond with more talk, but with action. In that sense, it does behoove the mainstream media to expose these cynical political ploys that prey on the impressionable and scared minds. Let's not forget that everyone, from Jon Stewart to Fox News, lambasted the left-wing war protesters in 2002 and 2003 for daring to link Bush to a war for oil, or carrying puppets and posters warning of war crimes in a police state - boy, were those green-haired freaks ever so wrong!
To put the above news report in context, the largest terrorist attack on US soil under the Clinton administration was NOT carried out by Al Qaeda, but by an impressionable mind who could only regurgitate slogans in his own defense.
Why is Obama spending all this money on all these socialist welfare programs when these trillions of dollars could be better spent on a war, preferably with Eyeran, or any of those other places on the map whose names I will figure out how to spell once we start bombing them.
It's great to see freedom of speech outside of "free speech zones" and people demanding their right to criticize the president, which was considered blasphemy just four months ago! Of course, if John Wayne McCain was president, all protesters would be labeled traitors by the very commentators who now claim to be freedom fighters. Also, how come no one dressed up as Indians (feathers, not dots)? Wasn't that an essential part of the whole historic Boston Tea Party scene?
Recent Comments
If THEY do come for my guns, I will politely hand them over as long as I am paid a fair market price for them.
You can have my guns when you ply me with cold hard cash!
And no, Greek historians, those were not better times.
;)
So, it seems that the facts contradict your argument, that volunteerism and goodwill are an effective substitute for a comprehensive government program that focuses on the trinity of poverty - unemployment, education and health care. When people, usually Republicans, argue such anecdotal information on social welfare, they usually forget to factor in the 12 years of Republican retardation of social welfare from 1980 to 1992, and the 2000-2008 retardation era which, collectively, have devastated the lower income populations by removing all semblance of a security net.
They do - and they were still not as large, in terms of US casualties, as the domestic terror attack. And "ships" - how many "ships" were attacked? I remember the USS Cole - which is one ship, what other ones are you talking about?
And to get back to the larger point here - the Clinton administration was deadly serious about Al Qaeda, and did as much as it could do over and above the Republican obstructionism in Congress, wherein the Republicans did not want to provide Clinton with ANY room to have a foreign military policy. Go back and read any of the archived news reports about foreign policy crises in the Clinton years and see how Republicans in Congress, time and again, refused to allow Clinton the room to have a more vigorous foreign military policy.
And let us not forget that Richard Clarke - the counter-terrorism intel expert on Al Qaeda - specifically warned the Bush administration in Jan 2001 to watch out for Al Qaeda attacks, and repeated these warnings over the subsequent months but never got a serious audience with the top officials.
So, there is where the divide lies - Bush supporters blame Clinton for allegedly not having done anything to stop Al Qaeda, while denying having played a role in tying Clinton's hands in Congress. At the same time, they deny Clinton administration's successes against Al Qaeda, and deny that they ever received any warnings about Al Qaeda, and deny that they were planning on a war in Iraq since before 9/11, and deny that the focus on a Iraq War in 2002 took away from the military needs in Tora Bora... and deny that their post-war Iraq plans, or lack thereof, led to a rise in terrorism worldwide...
The matter at hand, and the subject of my original comment, however, is whether the threat of domestic terrorism is a serious threat, and whether the news media should be more diligent in exposing the political opportunists who are exaggerating and reinforcing the irrational fears of their base - and I don't believe "that guy" had anything to say on that account.
Also, maybe read this:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/
To put the above news report in context, the largest terrorist attack on US soil under the Clinton administration was NOT carried out by Al Qaeda, but by an impressionable mind who could only regurgitate slogans in his own defense.
Signed,
Completely Dumbfounded By Reality