| This is the first 20 minutes of Bill Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. In this clip, Wallace asks Clinton why he didn’t do more to capture or kill Osama bin Laden while he was in office. Clinton clearly feels like he has been set up and doesn’t hold back in telling Wallace just how he feels. You can bet Wallace will not be able to find any footage of FOX asking these same questions of the NeoCons. Clinton was right on; FOX is to the Republican Party like Pravda was to the old Soviet Union; the propoganda wing. full transcript here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/ | |
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Clinton Interviewed on Fox News Sunday
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Tomah Journal - Opinion
Tomah Journal - Opinion
Wow, couldn't have said it better myself. What Americans fail to realize is there is this core group of Neo-Cons who want ultimate power. No different than the Lords and Barons of old Europe who ruled over serfdoms. No different than conquerors of the past; Genghis Kahn, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Cortes, Alexander the Great, etc.
They desire total control, they depise descent and they see Democracy as a hindrance because it empowers the people. They seek to create a two tier society in which they have economic control. Once they gain economic control it is much easier to control the masses.
Wow, couldn't have said it better myself. What Americans fail to realize is there is this core group of Neo-Cons who want ultimate power. No different than the Lords and Barons of old Europe who ruled over serfdoms. No different than conquerors of the past; Genghis Kahn, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Cortes, Alexander the Great, etc.
They desire total control, they depise descent and they see Democracy as a hindrance because it empowers the people. They seek to create a two tier society in which they have economic control. Once they gain economic control it is much easier to control the masses.
Monday, August 22, 2005
We Are Going On A Cruise
Jackie and I are going on a cruise in September for our Twentieth Wedding Anniversary. We went on a cruise for our honeymoon and loved it. I'm not sure, other than having other priorities, why we haven't done another since then.
Here are a few links regarding the cruise we are going on and the ship we are sailing on. We are cruising the Western Caribbean with stops in Belize, Roatan Island, Honduras, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands and Cozumel, Mexico.
We will be flying into Miami, FL on September 17th, so we ensure our luggage catches up with us before the cruise(something we learned on our first cruise) and so we can see South Beach and essentially make it a fifth port of call.
I am borrowing Jackie's Dad's digital camera and we will post pictures thoughout the week. Join us virtually on our cruise.
http://www.carnival.com/Ship_Detail.aspx?shipCode=VA
http://www.mediacons.it/infoCarnival/ShipInfo.asp?name=Valor
http://cruiseclues.com/shipstips/carnivalvalor.htm
http://www.i-cruise.com//cruise_content/Carnival_Valor_specs.htm
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Stop Global Warming: Virtual March on Washington
Stop Global Warming: Virtual March on Washington
I'm marching because I believe these are pivotal times we live in. Corporate America has watched the movie Wall Street and the only thing they didn't like was Michael Douglas character being prosecuted. Corporate America has found in George Bush the perfect person to heap hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars on in order to have free reign on the environment. One of his first acts as president was to cancel the Keoti Treaty designed to stop global warming. No negotiations, no summits, just cancel the treaty. The same people who thought it was okay to cheat the elderly out of their life savings at ENRON, and laugh about it are the same people who claim their is no problem with global warming. Their goal is greed, greed, greed, or as Michael Douglas said in Wall Street, "greed is good."
Look Folks, for the first time in recorded history, there was open water at the North Pole. Can't you see something wrong with that?
Join me and march today to stop global warming. And may God have mercy on the souls of those greedy individuals who's only goal in life is get rich at the expense of others.
I've had Agnostic friends over the years who said; "why do you believe in God and Jesus?" I always reply;"what do I have to lose?"
I'm marching because I believe these are pivotal times we live in. Corporate America has watched the movie Wall Street and the only thing they didn't like was Michael Douglas character being prosecuted. Corporate America has found in George Bush the perfect person to heap hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars on in order to have free reign on the environment. One of his first acts as president was to cancel the Keoti Treaty designed to stop global warming. No negotiations, no summits, just cancel the treaty. The same people who thought it was okay to cheat the elderly out of their life savings at ENRON, and laugh about it are the same people who claim their is no problem with global warming. Their goal is greed, greed, greed, or as Michael Douglas said in Wall Street, "greed is good."
Look Folks, for the first time in recorded history, there was open water at the North Pole. Can't you see something wrong with that?
Join me and march today to stop global warming. And may God have mercy on the souls of those greedy individuals who's only goal in life is get rich at the expense of others.
I've had Agnostic friends over the years who said; "why do you believe in God and Jesus?" I always reply;"what do I have to lose?"
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Smoke and Mirrors
Yahoo! News Message Boards Politics News
Democrats should not be drawn into this debate about better benefits for lower income workers. It is like debating what type of WMD Iraq had before the war; THERE WEREN"T ANY, PERIOD, so the type is irrelevant.
Democrats need to stay on message; Bush and his ilk want to destroy Social Security, period.
This administration felt super confident, post Iraq, and post election, that they could lie to the American people, the people would buy there lies again, like they did with Iraq, and they could go forward with privatization. Privatization is a back door means to destroy Social Security, period. Privatization will load the system with so much debt at an accelerated pace, while artificially propping up the stock market, they can say with a somewhat straight face, "well it was a grand experiment, but it was just another failed social program."
They kill three birds with one stone; destroy Social Security, funnel trillions of dollars to their filthy rich friends on Wall Street, and ensure those filthy rich have plenty of cash to donate to their future campaigns.
Remember, their goal, is the ultimate destruction of Social Security, therefore they have looked at the abysmal polls, and have come to the conclusion, they will have to put out this phony proposal, as phony as WMD in Iraq, to try to win over the lower income people, bring up the poll numbers, and push forward their destruction plan.
Remembering their goal is to destroy Social Security, I want you try a little experiment. Without them knowing your opinion, ask the most right wing neo-con people you know what they think should happen to Social Security; they will tell you it needs to be destroyed. Then ask yourself this. Are moderate Republicans in charge right now, or right wing neo-cons?
Never forget, ultimately their goal is to destroy Social Security.
Democrats should not be drawn into this debate about better benefits for lower income workers. It is like debating what type of WMD Iraq had before the war; THERE WEREN"T ANY, PERIOD, so the type is irrelevant.
Democrats need to stay on message; Bush and his ilk want to destroy Social Security, period.
This administration felt super confident, post Iraq, and post election, that they could lie to the American people, the people would buy there lies again, like they did with Iraq, and they could go forward with privatization. Privatization is a back door means to destroy Social Security, period. Privatization will load the system with so much debt at an accelerated pace, while artificially propping up the stock market, they can say with a somewhat straight face, "well it was a grand experiment, but it was just another failed social program."
They kill three birds with one stone; destroy Social Security, funnel trillions of dollars to their filthy rich friends on Wall Street, and ensure those filthy rich have plenty of cash to donate to their future campaigns.
Remember, their goal, is the ultimate destruction of Social Security, therefore they have looked at the abysmal polls, and have come to the conclusion, they will have to put out this phony proposal, as phony as WMD in Iraq, to try to win over the lower income people, bring up the poll numbers, and push forward their destruction plan.
Remembering their goal is to destroy Social Security, I want you try a little experiment. Without them knowing your opinion, ask the most right wing neo-con people you know what they think should happen to Social Security; they will tell you it needs to be destroyed. Then ask yourself this. Are moderate Republicans in charge right now, or right wing neo-cons?
Never forget, ultimately their goal is to destroy Social Security.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
FactCheck.org Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees
FactCheck.org Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees
My belief is, Bush and Company have looked at the polls, found there is no support for their privatization scheme, so they are now throwing out this carrot in the hopes they will lure support from traditional Democrats. Don't bite folks; Bush's Lies About Social Security are the same as his lies about IRAQ!!! First of all he is not trying to save Social Security; he is trying to load it with so much debt through his privatization scheme he can say it was a grand experiment but it failed. Talk to any far right wing extremist you know without them knowing your viewpoint. Ask them how they feel about Social Security; they will tell you Social Security should be destroyed. So then ask yourself; is this is a moderate or right wing administration?
The neo-cons running the government do not want the working class to have economic security. Economic security equals power; people with power can demand things. When unemployment reached all time lows during the Clinton Economic successes of the 90's, corporations were forced to provide benefits like day care, relaxed work environments, better health care, all to lure workers in a worker's market. This really aggravated the CEO's and other corporate fat cats.
It's not that difficult to understand; it's really simple math:
No increase in the minimum wage
+
No right for working class people to sue huge corporations that maim and kill
+
Increased medical costs
+
Decreased Medicare and Medicaid benefits
+
No ability for working class people to file for bankruptcy while still allowing the filthy rich to consolidate and hide their assets in states such as Florida
+
The destruction of Social Security
=
A subservient working class totally beholden to the richest one percent of this country.
They are trying to destroy retirement as we know it in this country. People will be forced to work until they drop dead on their job. My extreme visual is the Wal-Mart greeter that pushes your cart to you, then drops over dead.
Anyone who paints Social Security as a retirement plan is either uneducated, uninformed, or lying. If you want to talk about government assisted or sponsored RETIREMENT PLANS, then talk about 401k's, IRA's, or other tax deferred/exempt savings plans.
Social Security was never intended to be a RETIREMENT PLAN, it was intended to be Government sponsored, pay as you go, insurance. What rate of return do you get on your car insurance? Homeowners insurance? Renter's insurance? Life insurance? Medical insurance? You know you could cancel all your insurance, invest that money and probably get a better return; that is until you either wrecked your car, burned your house down or broke your neck.
Social Security is intended to be strictly a mandatory insurance program so that if a person works 40 years for an ENRON, or Worldcom, or Tyco, and gets shafted right when they are ready to retire, they don't jump off a building so their kids have some insurance money to bury them with.
If you need any further information study the effects of the Great Depression.
My belief is, Bush and Company have looked at the polls, found there is no support for their privatization scheme, so they are now throwing out this carrot in the hopes they will lure support from traditional Democrats. Don't bite folks; Bush's Lies About Social Security are the same as his lies about IRAQ!!! First of all he is not trying to save Social Security; he is trying to load it with so much debt through his privatization scheme he can say it was a grand experiment but it failed. Talk to any far right wing extremist you know without them knowing your viewpoint. Ask them how they feel about Social Security; they will tell you Social Security should be destroyed. So then ask yourself; is this is a moderate or right wing administration?
The neo-cons running the government do not want the working class to have economic security. Economic security equals power; people with power can demand things. When unemployment reached all time lows during the Clinton Economic successes of the 90's, corporations were forced to provide benefits like day care, relaxed work environments, better health care, all to lure workers in a worker's market. This really aggravated the CEO's and other corporate fat cats.
It's not that difficult to understand; it's really simple math:
No increase in the minimum wage
+
No right for working class people to sue huge corporations that maim and kill
+
Increased medical costs
+
Decreased Medicare and Medicaid benefits
+
No ability for working class people to file for bankruptcy while still allowing the filthy rich to consolidate and hide their assets in states such as Florida
+
The destruction of Social Security
=
A subservient working class totally beholden to the richest one percent of this country.
They are trying to destroy retirement as we know it in this country. People will be forced to work until they drop dead on their job. My extreme visual is the Wal-Mart greeter that pushes your cart to you, then drops over dead.
Anyone who paints Social Security as a retirement plan is either uneducated, uninformed, or lying. If you want to talk about government assisted or sponsored RETIREMENT PLANS, then talk about 401k's, IRA's, or other tax deferred/exempt savings plans.
Social Security was never intended to be a RETIREMENT PLAN, it was intended to be Government sponsored, pay as you go, insurance. What rate of return do you get on your car insurance? Homeowners insurance? Renter's insurance? Life insurance? Medical insurance? You know you could cancel all your insurance, invest that money and probably get a better return; that is until you either wrecked your car, burned your house down or broke your neck.
Social Security is intended to be strictly a mandatory insurance program so that if a person works 40 years for an ENRON, or Worldcom, or Tyco, and gets shafted right when they are ready to retire, they don't jump off a building so their kids have some insurance money to bury them with.
If you need any further information study the effects of the Great Depression.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Aristocracies In America
Taking away bankruptcy for the middle class, while allowing the filthy rich to still protect their assets through consolidation in certain states, like Florida; elimination of the inheritance tax; limiting the poor and middle class's right to seek monetary damages against huge corporations that kill and maim us; tax policies that shift wealth upward; and on, and on.
The founding fathers were so afraid of aristocracies, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states in part: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Noah Webster, Samuel Adams, James Madison — rejected anything that smacked of the stratified aristocracies of Europe. Visiting Europe, Jefferson and Adams wrote of being appalled by concentrations of vast wealth passed down for centuries. Absolutely central to the success of the new republic, they argued, was fair, broad, and equitable distribution of wealth and property.
President Theodore Roosevelt first proposed the current estate tax in 1904 in response to the corruption and excesses of the Gilded Age. Progressive Era reformers feared that if wealth concentration continued unchecked, most of the U.S. population would end up subjects of the robber barons, as Europeans were to their aristocracies. The tax was signed into law in 1916.
Take someone like Bill Gates; whose wealth would probably allow him to buy most of the available real estate in the state of Washington before he passed on. He then, only rents that property, never selling it. Then, he is able to pass that real estate along with his monetary wealth to heirs, who in turn buy another state's real estate and pass it on; it's real life Monopoly. What you end up with, are a few very wealthy individuals that own the nations assets, and everyone else works for them.
Some would think this is acceptable, these are very dangerous individuals, people who's ancestors probably would have fought on the side of the British; these people need to be exorcised form our government.
The founding fathers were so afraid of aristocracies, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states in part: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Noah Webster, Samuel Adams, James Madison — rejected anything that smacked of the stratified aristocracies of Europe. Visiting Europe, Jefferson and Adams wrote of being appalled by concentrations of vast wealth passed down for centuries. Absolutely central to the success of the new republic, they argued, was fair, broad, and equitable distribution of wealth and property.
President Theodore Roosevelt first proposed the current estate tax in 1904 in response to the corruption and excesses of the Gilded Age. Progressive Era reformers feared that if wealth concentration continued unchecked, most of the U.S. population would end up subjects of the robber barons, as Europeans were to their aristocracies. The tax was signed into law in 1916.
Take someone like Bill Gates; whose wealth would probably allow him to buy most of the available real estate in the state of Washington before he passed on. He then, only rents that property, never selling it. Then, he is able to pass that real estate along with his monetary wealth to heirs, who in turn buy another state's real estate and pass it on; it's real life Monopoly. What you end up with, are a few very wealthy individuals that own the nations assets, and everyone else works for them.
Some would think this is acceptable, these are very dangerous individuals, people who's ancestors probably would have fought on the side of the British; these people need to be exorcised form our government.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
