jbj, you voice your concern over the possibility of losing your "rights and freedoms." Did you support the Patriot Act? Were you one of the thousands of people who gladly gave up their constitutional right to privacy because Dick Cheney told you that you had nothing to fear if you had nothing to hide? If so, then you have already willingly given away your "rights and freedom" you just don't like the people who now control them.
Freedom of speech is for everyone NOT just those whose speech you agree with or condone. It MUST be freedom of speech for ALL or it is freedom of speech for NONE.
It will be interesting to see what a fact check of this letter reveals. This is right out of the Karl Rove playbook. Project your own shortcomings onto your opponent. You may recall the 2004 election when Kerry, the decorated war hero, was vilified as an anti-war sympathizer and coward and Bush, who never saw a day of action in Vietnam and rarely showed up for National Guard duty, was portrayed as a soldier and man of action. (See photo of Bush in flight suit after landing on aircraft carrier).
Interesting that Ms. Rice never voiced these concerns before now. Also interesting that Ms. Rice only seeks apologies from the Democrats even though her claims address perceived wrongs committed by the U.S. Government which, when last I checked, is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans.
Ms. Rice points out that REPUBLICAN President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. While this is true, it is doubtful that every soldier fighting on the side of the union was a republican. I am sure a good many democrats wore the union blue and died to abolish slavery as well.
Also, Ms. Rice seems to gloss over the fact that it was President Lyndon Johnson, a DEMOCRAT, who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.
The Republican Party has always been a select social club made up of wealthy, old, white people. Now those people are dying off and the party base is shrinking to the point where they can no longer wield the power they previously could. The party's problems reflect the changing demographics of the country where white people no longer hold the overwhelming majority and, therefore, no longer get to dictate the rules. Now, suddenly, the GOP is attempting to rewrite history and convince us all that THEY have really been the party of the poor and downtrodden all along.
Expect to see more of this in the months to come. The Rove mantra is "Tell a lie and keep repeating it until the people believe it."
Let me start out by saying that I do not believe President Bush lied to us about the WMDs or the need to go to war. I used to believe he had lied but now I realize that he, like the members of congress, were misled to believe these facts and Believed them to be true as they represented the misinformation to the american people.
The true liar in almost every scandal of the Bush Administration was Dick Cheney. Before my fellow Republicans begin attacking, I don't believe Cheney lied because he is Republican, rather I believe he lied because he is a power hungry individual who truly thought he knew what was best for America whether anyone agreed with him or not. I believe the correct term is megalomaniac. These are the events that lead to my conclusions:
(1) Cheney was tapped to find a VP running mate for GWB and decided he was the most qualified. In effect, he appointed himself Vice President. Upon taking that office he immediately expanded its powers and influence. No VP in history exercised so much control over decisions and policy.
(2) Once the smoke cleared, the path of the Valerie Plame outing led back to Dick Cheney. Cheney used Libby and Robert Novak to assassinate the career of Plame in political retaliation for Joe Wilson's stance on Iraq. Cheney also let Libby take the bullet for him and was greatly and publicly outraged with GWB for not pardoning Libby.
(3) Cheney had ALL the data, recon, and information about Iraq and the viability of WMDs. Cheney doctored and cherry-picked the information to convince President Bush, and even Colin Powell, that there was a real threat. THIS WAS A LIE perpetuated by Cheney to justify invading Iraq and taking over its oil reaserves. (Let us not forget Cheney's ties to big oil).
(4) When challenged on one of the Sunday morning talk shows (I think it was Tim Russert) about the fact that the American people did not support the war or the decision to invade, Cheney calmly replied "So what? We're in charge." The hubris of this man's ego knew no bounds. He truly believed he had vision and we were all blind.
Finally, let me assert again that I do not believe the Republicans promoted these lies. I believe they were sold to the President, Congress, and the American people by one self-centered, egomaniacal man who happened to be a Republican.
Let the arguments begin.
RS
To "fundamentally transform" something means to change it in a meaningful way at its very core.
France was "fundamentally transformed" when it was liberated, by the Allied Forces, from Gremany's control in WWII. This was a good thing.
Savings and Loans were "fundamentally transformed" by Neil Bush and others when they were deregulated, leading to an S & L collapse. This was a bad thing.
The fact that something is "fundamentally transformed" does not automatically mean it is a change for the worse or that it can blindly be compared to other "fundamental transformations." You have to look at each instance in context and in history.
I know you want to believe that President Obama is out to destroy America but there simply is no factual proof to support your theory.
P.S.-If you're worried right now because a white man is not in charge, hold on to your socks. The demographics of America are changing so drastically that it may be a long time before a WHITE MAN is elected President again.
Nice job Gyro. Nothing like a broad, vague, denigrating post to make a point.
Thank goodness we have a self-righteous Republican (I assume) pundit like yourself to pontificate on the perceived shortcomings of entire groups of people in general.
Kenneth, as usual, your "facts" are actually opinions shaped by your biased view of this President. But then, it doesn't really matter!
Were you trying to make a point or merely pointlessly ranting. You don't like President Obama or socialism or Planned Parenthood. We get it. Can we move on now?
You have intimated several times that you quit writing monthly letters to the editor because of some perceived slight by the Advocate. My question; what would it take to get you to quit blogging as well?
A simple examination of the demographics of Victoria can be very revealing. There are a large number of residents below twenty years of age and a large number of residents over sixty years of age and a small number of residents in between.
The young ones have no say in where they live BUT clearly they leave as soon as it is practical. The older folks move here because of the quiet pace of life. They aren't looking for nightlife, dining, or entertainment. They just want the basic amenities and a slower pace of life AND THAT'S WHAT VICTORIA PROVIDES!
We are a retirement village not a growing city. Even the VEDC and this editorial target retirees as our growth market.
Make this a vibrant area that will attract younger people and families and real growth will occur. However, this will require the city to attract more modern businesses, restaurants and entertainment venues (you know, those things you want us to drive two hours to get elsewhere).
Gyro: "In the old Democrat ruled segregated South why do you think Blacks were taught to take off their cap or hat when addressing a White person?"
I don't know Gyro. Why don't you enlighten us. You sound like you come from good old white plantation owner stock. Why were Blacks taught that they were inferior to Whites?
Kenneth: "White House staffer, Susan Crawford, with known ties to ACORN, seems to have teamed up with Robert McChesney and the regulators at the FCC in order to begin steps to control the internet."
Since you represent that this statement is fact, let's break it down.
"White House staffer, Susan Crawford, with known ties to ACORN" What are the ties between Ms. Crawford and ACORN? Please cite specific items.
"seems to have teamed up with Robert McChesney and the regulators at the FCC" Seems to? Is that your opinion or the opinion of Fox News, et al? Has she or hasn't she? What action has Ms. Crawford taken which lead you to believe she has teamed up with anyone on anything? And specifcally, which FCC regulators are involved? What are their names? I'd like to have FACTS not generalities.
"in order to begin steps to control the internet." Is this a fact or is this what you speculate their purpose to be? Or is this what right-wing talk radio told you was their intent? How can you be sure? Did they put out a press release announcing their intent? And what does it mean to "begin steps"? Have they actually done anything to take over the internet? If so, what steps have they taken?
You continually claim that you are stating fact but this whole paragraph is nothing more than opinion, either yours or someone else's, which you then regurgitate as FACT sprinkled with vague information and veiled accusations of wrongdoing.
Please don't demand that I chase down your rabbit trails trying to disprove your bulls**t. If you have answers to the questions I've asked then provide the information. Otherwise, admit that this is your opinion and NOT fact.
rollinstone: "We have high unemployment now because of stupid government programs that produced a recession, poverty and misery - a great job by a bunch of pompous, condescending, narcissistic,bloviating, lying, theiving, a$$holes."
You're being kind of rough on the Bush administration aren't you?
Newsletter
jbj, you voice your concern over the possibility of losing your "rights and freedoms." Did you support the Patriot Act? Were you one of the thousands of people who gladly gave up their constitutional right to privacy because Dick Cheney told you that you had nothing to fear if you had nothing to hide? If so, then you have already willingly given away your "rights and freedom" you just don't like the people who now control them.
Freedom of speech is for everyone NOT just those whose speech you agree with or condone. It MUST be freedom of speech for ALL or it is freedom of speech for NONE.
It will be interesting to see what a fact check of this letter reveals. This is right out of the Karl Rove playbook. Project your own shortcomings onto your opponent. You may recall the 2004 election when Kerry, the decorated war hero, was vilified as an anti-war sympathizer and coward and Bush, who never saw a day of action in Vietnam and rarely showed up for National Guard duty, was portrayed as a soldier and man of action. (See photo of Bush in flight suit after landing on aircraft carrier).
Interesting that Ms. Rice never voiced these concerns before now. Also interesting that Ms. Rice only seeks apologies from the Democrats even though her claims address perceived wrongs committed by the U.S. Government which, when last I checked, is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans.
Ms. Rice points out that REPUBLICAN President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. While this is true, it is doubtful that every soldier fighting on the side of the union was a republican. I am sure a good many democrats wore the union blue and died to abolish slavery as well.
Also, Ms. Rice seems to gloss over the fact that it was President Lyndon Johnson, a DEMOCRAT, who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.
The Republican Party has always been a select social club made up of wealthy, old, white people. Now those people are dying off and the party base is shrinking to the point where they can no longer wield the power they previously could. The party's problems reflect the changing demographics of the country where white people no longer hold the overwhelming majority and, therefore, no longer get to dictate the rules. Now, suddenly, the GOP is attempting to rewrite history and convince us all that THEY have really been the party of the poor and downtrodden all along.
Expect to see more of this in the months to come. The Rove mantra is "Tell a lie and keep repeating it until the people believe it."
Let me start out by saying that I do not believe President Bush lied to us about the WMDs or the need to go to war. I used to believe he had lied but now I realize that he, like the members of congress, were misled to believe these facts and Believed them to be true as they represented the misinformation to the american people.
The true liar in almost every scandal of the Bush Administration was Dick Cheney. Before my fellow Republicans begin attacking, I don't believe Cheney lied because he is Republican, rather I believe he lied because he is a power hungry individual who truly thought he knew what was best for America whether anyone agreed with him or not. I believe the correct term is megalomaniac. These are the events that lead to my conclusions:
(1) Cheney was tapped to find a VP running mate for GWB and decided he was the most qualified. In effect, he appointed himself Vice President. Upon taking that office he immediately expanded its powers and influence. No VP in history exercised so much control over decisions and policy.
(2) Once the smoke cleared, the path of the Valerie Plame outing led back to Dick Cheney. Cheney used Libby and Robert Novak to assassinate the career of Plame in political retaliation for Joe Wilson's stance on Iraq. Cheney also let Libby take the bullet for him and was greatly and publicly outraged with GWB for not pardoning Libby.
(3) Cheney had ALL the data, recon, and information about Iraq and the viability of WMDs. Cheney doctored and cherry-picked the information to convince President Bush, and even Colin Powell, that there was a real threat. THIS WAS A LIE perpetuated by Cheney to justify invading Iraq and taking over its oil reaserves. (Let us not forget Cheney's ties to big oil).
(4) When challenged on one of the Sunday morning talk shows (I think it was Tim Russert) about the fact that the American people did not support the war or the decision to invade, Cheney calmly replied "So what? We're in charge." The hubris of this man's ego knew no bounds. He truly believed he had vision and we were all blind.
Finally, let me assert again that I do not believe the Republicans promoted these lies. I believe they were sold to the President, Congress, and the American people by one self-centered, egomaniacal man who happened to be a Republican.
Let the arguments begin.
RS
To "fundamentally transform" something means to change it in a meaningful way at its very core.
France was "fundamentally transformed" when it was liberated, by the Allied Forces, from Gremany's control in WWII. This was a good thing.
Savings and Loans were "fundamentally transformed" by Neil Bush and others when they were deregulated, leading to an S & L collapse. This was a bad thing.
The fact that something is "fundamentally transformed" does not automatically mean it is a change for the worse or that it can blindly be compared to other "fundamental transformations." You have to look at each instance in context and in history.
I know you want to believe that President Obama is out to destroy America but there simply is no factual proof to support your theory.
P.S.-If you're worried right now because a white man is not in charge, hold on to your socks. The demographics of America are changing so drastically that it may be a long time before a WHITE MAN is elected President again.
Nice job Gyro. Nothing like a broad, vague, denigrating post to make a point.
Thank goodness we have a self-righteous Republican (I assume) pundit like yourself to pontificate on the perceived shortcomings of entire groups of people in general.
Kenneth, as usual, your "facts" are actually opinions shaped by your biased view of this President. But then, it doesn't really matter!
Were you trying to make a point or merely pointlessly ranting. You don't like President Obama or socialism or Planned Parenthood. We get it. Can we move on now?
You have intimated several times that you quit writing monthly letters to the editor because of some perceived slight by the Advocate. My question; what would it take to get you to quit blogging as well?
A simple examination of the demographics of Victoria can be very revealing. There are a large number of residents below twenty years of age and a large number of residents over sixty years of age and a small number of residents in between.
The young ones have no say in where they live BUT clearly they leave as soon as it is practical. The older folks move here because of the quiet pace of life. They aren't looking for nightlife, dining, or entertainment. They just want the basic amenities and a slower pace of life AND THAT'S WHAT VICTORIA PROVIDES!
We are a retirement village not a growing city. Even the VEDC and this editorial target retirees as our growth market.
Make this a vibrant area that will attract younger people and families and real growth will occur. However, this will require the city to attract more modern businesses, restaurants and entertainment venues (you know, those things you want us to drive two hours to get elsewhere).
Gyro: "In the old Democrat ruled segregated South why do you think Blacks were taught to take off their cap or hat when addressing a White person?"
I don't know Gyro. Why don't you enlighten us. You sound like you come from good old white plantation owner stock. Why were Blacks taught that they were inferior to Whites?
Kenneth: "White House staffer, Susan Crawford, with known ties to ACORN, seems to have teamed up with Robert McChesney and the regulators at the FCC in order to begin steps to control the internet."
Since you represent that this statement is fact, let's break it down.
"White House staffer, Susan Crawford, with known ties to ACORN" What are the ties between Ms. Crawford and ACORN? Please cite specific items.
"seems to have teamed up with Robert McChesney and the regulators at the FCC" Seems to? Is that your opinion or the opinion of Fox News, et al? Has she or hasn't she? What action has Ms. Crawford taken which lead you to believe she has teamed up with anyone on anything? And specifcally, which FCC regulators are involved? What are their names? I'd like to have FACTS not generalities.
"in order to begin steps to control the internet." Is this a fact or is this what you speculate their purpose to be? Or is this what right-wing talk radio told you was their intent? How can you be sure? Did they put out a press release announcing their intent? And what does it mean to "begin steps"? Have they actually done anything to take over the internet? If so, what steps have they taken?
You continually claim that you are stating fact but this whole paragraph is nothing more than opinion, either yours or someone else's, which you then regurgitate as FACT sprinkled with vague information and veiled accusations of wrongdoing.
Please don't demand that I chase down your rabbit trails trying to disprove your bulls**t. If you have answers to the questions I've asked then provide the information. Otherwise, admit that this is your opinion and NOT fact.
rollinstone: "We have high unemployment now because of stupid government programs that produced a recession, poverty and misery - a great job by a bunch of pompous, condescending, narcissistic,bloviating, lying, theiving, a$$holes."
You're being kind of rough on the Bush administration aren't you?