Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Then and Now


Seven score and ten years ago today...

===

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863


===

How things have changed from then to today.

Now the far Right Republican Party is openly hostile towards the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"

They are legislatively suppressing democracy itself, doing their utmost to discourage and restrict voters from registration and poll access.

Their goal is an inverted totalitarianism, domination by the elite minority, a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

Their words and behavior show us how they truly resent "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Here, reduced to the simplest terms, is the GOP's Grand Oligarchy Plan:

Every man for himself, and let the powerful wealthy elites dictate our laws.

That's what it boils down to.

And of course, a healthcare system that amounts to "Let 'em die", as cheered in a Republican Presidential debate.

And shame on the Democrats!  They are abetting Republicans, and conceding the people's Constitutionally provided general welfare away from them, while doing the bidding of the economic elites.  

The Wal-Mart heirs have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of ALL Americans. Their employees are paid so poorly they need public assistance.

Can we ask that something be done about this?

And whose vision are we following as a nation? What is the government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich doing about this neo-feudalist economic travesty?

The Republicans tell us the Wal-Mart heirs deserve MORE tax cuts. And that food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits should be slashed.

What would Lincoln see in his Republican Party today? What would he see in his nation; one he'd given his life to preserve?

Something would be familiar. He would see similar hateful divisions in our people. Divisions nurtured by powerful economic interests that have no use for liberty and equality for all, but an antagonism for "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Lincoln would be enraged, and then weep, at what the Republican Party has become.

212 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 212 of 212
Dave Dubya said...

You're right, I'm not going to dignify a wild conspiracy theory.

Not even "nukular" aluminum tubes, "biological labs", and connections to al-Qaeda?

You gonna tell us these false assertions had no effect on Bush/Cheney getting the support for their war for crony profit and political gain?

Dave Dubya said...

Would you like to discuss the falsehoods in the resolution too?

I'd be happy to show you the lies were there too.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "You're right, I'm not going to dignify a wild conspiracy theory."

It's not a theory when there is sufficient evidence, in many areas, that puts the "official story" in grave doubt. As previously mentioned, "conspiracy theories" are evidence that the courts have refused to hear.

By definition, we both obviously agree it was a conspiracy; we just disagree who the conspirators were. As far as the "theory" part, the "official story" was only a theory, also. Nothing was ever proven. Under our system of constitutional law, due process for the alleged perpetrators was never granted.

Procedural law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in a criminal proceeding. These rules are designed to ensure a fair and consistent application of due process in the United States. This was never applied in the separate crimes that occurred on 9/11. A commission, appointed by the president and congress, was established "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks". But to date, there have been no trials.


"It won't matter how much evidence you are shown - as Maddow said this isn't about evidence."

You're totally wrong! It's all about evidence. Under our system of law, where due process is paramount, a person can't be convicted of a crime without adequate evidence. It's all about evidence...


"You believe this because it makes you feel good."

No, I believe this because I know justice hasn't been served. This makes me feel bad.


"But readers can read this and see what kind of conspiracy kook you are, and that has clearly been established.

I guess I'm just a part of a growing number of "kooks" who believe the official story is a fairy tale. Desiring that justice is served makes me a kookie guy!

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

What you can't show me Dave, was that Iraq and Saddam Hussein was in compliance with the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991. We already know you can't even think of how many US pilots would have to die to enforce that agreement. Certainly getting fired on over 4000 times and having 3 jets get shot down wasn't enough for you.

And how many Presidents would have to be assassinated for you to care? Iraq tried to assassinate one of ours - that was on the authorization to use force too.

Instead you'll pick some "aluminium" factoid in order to justify your "Bush Lied" conspiracy theory.

And speaking of that - Jeff is still banging his head against that wall and I doubt he'll stop.

This is what this is folks. Wild conclusions based on factless paranoid delusions. These guys are the militia weirdos of the left minus all the guns and (hopefully) belly fat Its the other side of the Birther coin.
Even well known leftists disregard this stuff out of hand because its so obviously false.

You want lies? This is more like delusions. Mostly its Jeff and Dave being legends in their own minds. Heroes in their own made up story book political thriller.

Dave Dubya said...

Once again,
You gonna tell us these false assertions had no effect on Bush/Cheney getting the support for their war for crony profit and political gain?

As a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer” Free better stay away from that, eh? For a brave tough guy, beliefs trump facts, and he’s frightened and threatened by the truth. (They usually are, being authoritarian personalities.) Of course, to a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer” Bush/Cheney always told the truth.

Never mind “some aluminum factoid”. LOL.

So we must wonder if “some aluminum factoid” looks at all like a “nukular” aluminum tube, as we’ve certainly never seen one of either.

How about you, Free? Got some "nukular" aluminum tubes, "biological labs", and connections to al-Qaeda? Or are you ready to admit you’re a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer”?

Where you have a non-starter is statements like "Bush lied." You have no evidence of that. You have evidence intelligence was incorrect,

We have Bush/Cheney using words like “no doubt” and “no question”, don’t we? Yes, those were lies.

Guess what else. Bush and Cheney also had evidence their statements were incorrect. They rejected it, of course. Bush admitted to "catapulting the propaganda". Instead they told us “no doubt” and “no question”. Those count as lies to everyone but a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer".

Since we all know by now that Free has no concept of the words “hypocrisy” and “implied”, we’ll try not to confuse him anymore with our adult level language.

Dave Dubya said...

Now, as promised:

Would you like to discuss the falsehoods in the resolution too?

I'd be happy to show you the lies were there too.


Now I warn you, understanding “implied” is important to see why 9-11 is repeatedly mentioned in the war resolution. Free’s not going to understand, but here we go:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;


Well? Gonna keep running from the truth? Like you even have a choice.

So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?

You won't answer.

You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind.

Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.

...And I will once again respond:

One more time,

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

okjimm said...

I can't handle Free's lack of a sense of reality. I like reality, of course, though, on a limited basis. Like Woody Allen said, "I hate reality but it's still the best place to get a good steak.”

get a steak, Free, or a cheeseburger at least. AND...personally, I would like to hide behind Rachael Maddow.....just in case she might change her sexual preference. just saying.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

okjimm: "I can't handle Free's lack of a sense of reality."

On the contrary, I find him utterly amusing. I enjoy messing with him. He's such an easy target. (I wonder if the Afghanis and Iraqis thought the same thing? ;-)


"...personally, I would like to hide behind Rachael Maddow.....just in case she might change her sexual preference. just saying."

I second the resolution!

free0352 said...

You gonna tell us these false assertions

What false assertions? Even the quotes YOU provided had no false assertions. They clearly stated Iraq had no hand in 9-11.

We have Bush/Cheney using words like “no doubt” and “no question”, don’t we?

If by that, you mean they clearly stated Iraq had no hand in 9-11 - well that doesn't look too good for your case does it?

the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons

Chemical weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion.

members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;

Zarqaui and hundreds of his terrorists were found in Iraq after the invasion, and were found to be there BEFORE the invasion.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction,

Everyone knows Iraq used WMD against its neighbor Iran and its own people.

Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups

Notice this doesn't say "Al Qaeda," it says terrorist groups. No one can deny Iraq's support for terrorist groups. It very publicly paid money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel - and that is only one example.

All those things were true. It would seem the only one running from the truth is you. You can't possibly argue that Iraq was in compliance with the 1991 cease fire. They didn't even cease fire. It only stands to reason, that when the other side resumes fire - you resume it also.











Dave Dubya said...

So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?

You won't answer.

You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind.

Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.

...And I will once again respond:

One more time,

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 212 of 212   Newer› Newest»