Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Hate and Blame Game


Iraq is unraveling and the far Right is blaming Obama. Who’s surprised?  Cheney, ever the hateful spewing liar, said, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

 Classic radical Right projection.

It’s so easy for them to blame the black guy they hate so intensely. Not that they could possibly be racists, right? Ridiculous, they will tell us Obama and liberals are the real racists. 

More classic radical Right projection.

I have to laugh at the Obama Derangement Syndrome hysteria that has never died in the raving minds of authoritarian Bush/Cheney true believers. The cult blames Obama for everything bad in Iraq. It matters not that Bush’s war for crony profit and political gain destroyed the country, and left them a government aligned with Iran that planted the seeds of civil war. It matters not that the Iraqis demanded Bush to get the hell out of their country and he agreed to do so by treaty.

But what is astounding is even FOX(R) is not automatically defending Cheney anymore:

Megyn Kelly vs. Dick Cheney: An accountability moment for the ex-veep

Megyn Kelly came at Cheney hard in that Wednesday night appearance. She did not let him off the hook for what happened in 2003. It was an important moment for her, as a relatively new prime-time anchor, and for Fox.

Kelly began by quoting liberal Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman:

“‘There is not a single person in America who has been more wrong and more shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Dick Cheney, and now as the cascade of misery and death and chaos, he did so much to unleash raises anew, Mr. Cheney has the unadulterated gall to come before the country and tell us that it's all someone else's fault.’ The suggestion is that you caused this mess, Mr. Vice President.  What say you?”

Cheney responded with his standard defense: “I think we went into Iraq for very good reasons.  I think when we left office, we had a situation in Iraq that was very positive… What happened was that Barack Obama came to office, and instead of negotiating a stay behind agreement, he basically walked away from it.”

Kelly came back hard: “But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir.  You said there were no doubts Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  You said we would greeted as liberators.  You said the Iraq insurgency was in the last throes back in 2005.  And you said that after our intervention, extremists would have to, quote, ‘rethink their strategy of Jihad.’  Now with almost a trillion dollars spent there with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say, you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?”

Cheney stuck to his guns: “We inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody's mind about the extent of Saddam's involvement in weapons of mass destruction.  We had a situation where if we -- after 9/11, we were concerned about a follow-up  attack, it would involve not just airline tickets and box cutters as the weapons, but rather something far deadlier, perhaps even a nuclear weapon.”

Except there were no WMDs or nuclear weapons.

Thank you FOX(R)!

But the RRBC hate wagon rolls on.

One RRBC member revealingly asked, “Why is it ok for liberals to hate Bush but wrong for conservatives to hate Obama?”

This is the perfect frame of the RRBC (Radical Right Bubble Cult) world view. Hate.

For most enlightened liberals and other kind souls, hate is not ok. We understand it's dark, and ultimately self-defeating, nature.

If we hate, we try to “hate the sin and not the sinner”.

Not that war criminals Bush and Cheney haven't done anything to arouse hatred. Their building an unconstitutional secret surveillance state, and fondness for torture, also fuel the righteous anger of informed freedom loving Americans.

And there's no more effective way of spreading hatred than starting a war of aggression.

When their war was clearly for the benefit of crony capitalists and the political agenda of the war mongers, the aggressors invite hatred from more than their victims and enemies. Their fellow countrymen gifted with conscience will be enraged at the death, injustice and destruction occurring.

Astoundingly, our corporate media has featured neocons like Wolfowitz, Kristol and Cheney to spew their wrongheaded “expertise” on Iraq. Where else can those who have been proven so wrong be allowed to participate in the discussion? Especially when those who were correct and disputed the warmongers are nowhere to be seen. Only in a corporatist military empire is this possible.  Yes, the corporate media allow them on the air, and ignore the voices of sanity like censored talk show host Phil Donahue.

Some "liberal" media, eh?

Seeing many of the same liars and warmongers continue to profit, and be coddled by a complicit corporate media, and tolerated by an amoral government and justice system is enough to further anger and outrage all those with conscience.

What we hate more than the culprits is the utter lack of accountability and injustice for the torture, the warrantless surveillance, and deaths of hundreds of thousands. We hate seeing our nation transformed into a bellicose ugly beast, ruled by cold-blooded, belligerent, amoral corporate “citizens”.

If liberals hate Bush and Cheney it is because of the ongoing death, pain, suffering, and human tragedy that has unfolded from their evil lies and actions.

Many of the same liberals have grown angry at Obama for continuing too many of Bush's destructive militarist and surveillance state policies. Obama has been condemned for falling in line with Wall Street and corporate America, and for ignoring most progressive leaders and causes.. Many of his actions, or inactions, have been less than noble too. If I were emotionally immature and reactionary, I too could arouse some hate for Obama. I admit I hate his “looking forward” and away from accountability for the war criminals. 

So far I have yet to see one so-called conservative be that angry with Bush and Cheney. Yet the raving minds of authoritarian Bush/Cheney true believers know who to hate and blame, don’t they?

I've given my issues of contention with Obama; so what has Obama done to evoke the fierce and relentless hatred from the radical right? I don't mean conservative people like my grandmother. I mean the far right fringe of the RRBC true believers

They hate him for the mess Bush made in Iraq. They hate him for anything and everything, real or imagined. Just as they hate anyone who disagrees with their world view of corporate PR and Party propaganda.


Theirs is the kind of radical hate that fuels fascism. This is the face of fascism in America.

22 comments:

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Cheney will continue the "Great Lie" about the weapons of mass destruction until he finally croaks from a heart attack. It's the equivalent to a previous generation's "I am not a crook".

Yes, fascism thrives in America today. It has a different look than the one we're familiar with from decades ago, but it's fascism nonetheless -- with a corporatist touch.

It'll all play out to some unknown conclusion within the next decade or so. However it does, we have some tough days ahead and many hard decisions to make. The roller coaster is just approaching the apex. The wildest part of the ride is on its way. Hold on!

free0352 said...

Except there were no WMDs or nuclear weapons.

Yeah Yeah about that.

You'll note my source is that right wing conservative Rush Limbaugh mouthpiece... the BBC.

So far I have yet to see one so-called conservative be that angry with Bush and Cheney.

Yeah... about that.

Heck... you event mentioned Megan Kelly in your own post Dave...

But on another note... I'm curious what you think the way forward is for the United States and its policy towards the radical Islamist-Jihadist Caliphate that now straddles the middle east and whose stated next military objective is taking Mecca and Medina and later "Seeing us in New York."

I'm pretty sure "Bush Lied Kids Died" isn't a strategy.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Yes indeed. More corporate written legislation, more rigging the game for wealthy interests, more austerity and less public benefits for the people, and last but not least, more permanent war.

Neo-feudal fascism is well on its way.

Free,

About the “WMD’s”

They’re not WMDs. These degraded remnants were familiar to the UN before the invasion.

From your link: “The UN and US say the munitions are degraded and the rebels will be unable to make usable chemical arms from them.”

One question that occurs is, why didn't the US destroy those degraded remnants? They weren't even hidden. Maybe because they were not considered a serious weapon, just toxic waste that nobody wanted to deal with.

About “So far I have yet to see one so-called conservative be that angry with Bush and Cheney.”

Yes, Rand Paul and Megyn Kelly get points for truth and honesty. Good for them. How is that angry? Is it the same as when I call Obama a corporatist, surveillance state sell out? I don’t sense any anger over the deceptions and lies. Let us know when you find that, please.

About “I’ll see you in New York.”

This is how al-Baghdadi said goodbye to the guys from New York who released him. They didn't take it as a threat or see it as a declared “military objective”.

The way forward? We wouldn't be worried about this if the Bush/Cheney cartel hadn't duped America into their war for crony profit and political capital, would we?

"I don't blame President Obama," Paul told NBC News. "Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution."

I’d listen to Paul. Maybe there is no solution, at least on our part, especially another invasion and war. Doubling down on empire tactics will only make it worse. Been there, done that. Too bad nobody listens to liberals and Republican/libertarians in such matters.

Maybe someone should consider the possibility that it’s not our problem to solve. Isn’t that what “Iraqi Freedom” is supposed to be all about? Let’s give them a chance to work it out. Already there are both Sunni and Shia forces aligning against ISIS. I suppose we could ally ourselves with Iran...they want to help.

Can we keep our grubby hands off any conflict at all?

Nah, Never. We love war too much.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I'm curious what you think the way forward is for the United States and its policy towards the radical Islamist-Jihad Caliphate that now straddles the middle east..."

Do you mean the "Islamist-Jihad Caliphate" that was borne of the destabilization created in Iraq...courtesy of the American corporate-state?


"...and whose stated next military objective is taking Mecca and Medina and later 'Seeing us in New York.' "

Could you have selected a more sensationalist tabloid as your source? What's the matter, you couldn't find anything in the Enquirer?

As I've mentioned to you several times, you see a terrorist behind every bush, and around every corner.

Still looking?! Look in the mirror.


Dave Dubya: "Can we keep our grubby hands off any conflict at all? Nah, Never. We love war too much."

Brought to you by: The Military-Industrial-Security Complex, a proud subsidiary of the Corporate-State...

free0352 said...

This is how al-Baghdadi said goodbye to the guys from New York who released him.

Oh I'm sure. I bet he was all like "Yes, I'll see you in New York after I get done killing a few thousand Iraqis. Yes I know a great place to get falafel in Brooklyn."

I bet lots of inmates say the same thing to you on release day too, don't they Dave?

Neofudalism, the above is neo-stupidism. Neo-braindeadism.

You know what you've got? No plan.

Say it loud, your idea for what is to be done about a murderous and genocidal, religiously fanatical evil empire rising in the Levant whose stated purpose is to kill Americans wherever they can be found is...

None.

No, instead you tell us that the real enemy is our fellow Americans and that this racist hate spewing at the American people from these evil, twisted mass murdering psychopaths in the Mid East is really...

America's fault.

You tell the American people in the wake of 3000 Americans murdered on US soil and 6000 killed fighting the above homicidal murdering thugs is...

Not a big deal.

Maybe just maybe it isn't "corporatism" behind why you America blaming, head in the sand ostrich imitating communists can't win an election to save your life. Maybe its because you can't protect any lives. Denial is not a strategy but it hasn't stopped the left from blaming George Bush for 9-11 or America for defending its self. You think government's job is to run every aspect and provide for every need of everyone and to decide even a fair apportion of wealth but... don't defend Americans...

The real enemy is the folks trying to sell you things.

Barack Obama isn't behind the Caliphate in the Levant. Nope, and neither is George Bush.

Terrorists are behind it. And your answer to this is...

None.

Dave Dubya said...


You know what you've got? No plan.

Never said I had one. What’s your plan, Sport? Perhaps blame liberals for opposing the invasion that led to all that?

I bet he was all like "Yes, I'll see you in New York after I get done killing a few thousand Iraqis. Yes I know a great place to get falafel in Brooklyn."

How much do want to bet? Where’s the falafel joint? I like falafel. I bet that makes me a terrorist, right?

From your link:

In another interview with The Daily Beast, King said he took al-Baghdadi’s words as something of a joke — “like, ‘This is no big thing. I’ll see you on the block.’ ”

But al-Baghdadi didn’t seem like the type who’d end up leading an insurgency that threatens to topple Iraq’s government.


Which was my point.

No, instead you tell us that the real enemy is our fellow Americans and that this racist hate spewing at the American people from these evil, twisted mass murdering psychopaths in the Mid East is really... America's fault.

Hate is always the fault of the haters. And no, invading Iraq after all the lies was Bush’s fault. ALL his fault.

Therefore HE shares the blame for consequences. Why does the radical Right shirk all responsibility for their disasters? We have theories. Blame liberal "commies” is one. Hitler did that too. You too?

You tell the American people in the wake of 3000 Americans murdered on US soil and 6000 killed fighting the above homicidal murdering thugs is...Not a big deal.

Really? Show us where I said that. Hint: It’s all in YOUR head.

you America blaming, head in the sand ostrich imitating communists can't win an election to save your life.

LOL!! This is the RRBC all the way.

Maybe its because you can't protect any lives. Denial is not a strategy but it hasn't stopped the left from blaming George Bush for 9-11

Actually most liberals blame al-Qaeda, and some think they had help from those who shared an interest in such an attack. I don't blame Bush for the attack. I do blame him for shutting Richard Clarke out of cabinet meetings, after his warnings about al-Qaeda, and ignoring the August 6, 2001 daily brief titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S”.

After the attacks, what did Bush say to Clarke?

On September 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but - see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred-"

"Absolutely, we will look-again."

I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the president said testily and left us.



So, how many lives did Bush protect on 9-11, anyway? How many lives did Bush protect in Iraq, anyway?

What. A. Cult.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Where’s the falafel joint? I like falafel."

I love falafel...


Free0352: "Barack Obama isn't behind the Caliphate in the Levant. Nope, and neither is George Bush. Terrorists are behind it."

And behind this insurrection stands the largest and most dangerous breeder of the ISIL of all -- the Corporate-State.

This wouldn't have happened if state-sponsored terrorism, courtesy of the Corporate-State, didn't create an environment where zealots and fanatics are sucked in to fill a vacuum devoid of stability and hope.

The corporate-state has a running track record in this kind of thing -- always planned, implemented and, in the final analysis, left in disarray by the military-industrial-security complex.

Free0352, the reigning corporate-state thanks you for your contribution to state-sponsored terrorism. It's very obvious that you're proud of your service.

Yes, you're right, terrorism most undoubtedly exists -- and it has its roots right here within the M-I-S-C.

free0352 said...

Never said I had one

Ah I can see that. Might want one of those, a strategy, something considering these people are murderous fucking fanatics, and one of their main goals is to kill Americans where ever they can.

Just say'n.

And also just say'n the reason why socialists like you can't win elections probably has more to do with your lack of plans for this among other things, and bad plans for others, more so than a "corpocracy."

free0352 said...

behind this insurrection stands the largest and most dangerous breeder of the ISIL of all -- the Corporate-State.

Yeah, I'm so sure Pepsi or John Deere tractor or IBM are all like

"Ya know just what we need, a murderous terrorist state hell bent on killing us."

Normal mortals read this and just shake their heads at the stupid.

This is why you guys never win elections, not the "corpocracy."

Dave Dubya said...

You know what you've got? No plan.

"Never said I had one. What’s your plan, Sport?

Perhaps blame liberals for opposing the invasion that led to all that?"

Bingo.

What was Bush/Cheney's plan? Look how well that worked out.

Better blame more liberals. It's the far Right thing to do.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Yeah, I'm so sure Pepsi or John Deere tractor or IBM are all like 'Ya know just what we need, a murderous terrorist state hell bent on killing us.'"

Or you might prefer to just call it, "the corporate-state".

(By the way, I'd guess Halliburton, "the Banksters", and Big Oil way before those that you mentioned.)

free0352 said...

Yeah I'm not so sure ISIS is making the jihad either because of or in support of Halliburton.

Its mostly their twisted view of their religion. Everybody knows that.

Well, except you and those like you. Probably one of the factors why greens (the new red!) cannot win any elections - not because of some "corpocracy."

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Yeah I'm not so sure ISIS is making the jihad either because of or in support of Halliburton."

Obviously ISIS couldn't give a shit about Halliburton, the Banksters or Big Oil, but the fact is they're there because the corporate-state left Iraq in shambles -- courtesy of you and the military-industrial-security complex.

"Its mostly their twisted view of their religion. Everybody knows that."

And when a country is left in shambles, which Iraq was -- courtesy of you and the rest of the M-I-S-C -- something always has to fill the vacuum that was created. It just happens to be the ISIS in this instance. (It was the Nazis in post-WWI for Germany.)

In the case of Iraq, you broke it. ("Everybody knows that -- well, except you and those like you.")

As previously mentioned, the corporate-state thanks you for your service.

free0352 said...

but the fact is they're there because the corporate-state left Iraq in shambles -- courtesy of you

1.) I don't recall signing the order to withdraw from Iraq.

2.) ISIS is really just the part of Al'Qaeda in Iraq that got booted for killing to many of their own people. Last I checked Al'Qaeda was around long before I ever entered Iraq.

3.) None of that has anything to do with Haliburton.

Now that they are around and in Iraq, what are your thoughts as to handle that? Oh wait, you don't have any. Probably why you guys can't win any elections. Not the "corpocracy."

something always has to fill the vacuum that was created

Yeah, because nobody ever heard of radical Islam before 2003.

What fucking planet do you live on Jeff? Saying things like that are probably why nobody votes for people like you, not because of the "corpocracy." That's really it Jeff. It isn't corporations keeping you greens down, its the blithering idiotic, conspiracy theory laden made up nonsense that you say. They could move to public-funded elections tomorrow and you morons wouldn't win any of them. You're too stupid to find Iraq on a map let alone have a policy toward it.



free0352 said...

I mean this is something you might want to get a handle on before the next 9-11.

Oh wait, you rocket scientists think the CIA was behind 9-11 haha, my bad.

And (ghasping with laughter) you actually think its corporate advertising that keeps whatever it is you call a politician from having a chance LOL.

NO, its because mainstream America finds you batshit insane and all the funding in the world wouldn't win you a county commission slot and the big bad "corporations" don't even know you're alive.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "None of [leaving Iraq in shambles] has anything to do with Haliburton."

It has everything to do with "Halliburton" (and Big Oil and the banksters...everything). Or, to make it simpler for you to comprehend, it had everything to do with the M-I-S-C.

Capire?


"Now that they are around and in Iraq, what are your thoughts as to handle that? Oh wait, you don't have any."

You broke it, which was your intent all along. Now that radicalism has been sucked into the vacuum you created, it continues to create fodder for the permanent war against the "terrorist" folly that the corporate-state now lives and thrives upon.

Congratulations! Your prostituting of yourself makes you the perfect tool. I'm sure you're proud.


"Yeah, because nobody ever heard of radical Islam before 2003."

Speak for yourself. Islamic radicalism ("Islamic fundamentalism") has been around for decades. It was essentially a response to American imperialism and the propping up of right-wing dictators throughout the ME (and, I might add, the rest of the world). The overthrow of the Shah in Iran and rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini was one of the most significant signs of this shift.

It's apparent that your reference of, and to, historical trends always start with 9/11.


"Last I checked Al'Qaeda was around long before I ever entered Iraq."

What was your reference source for this one?...The Daily Caller? ;-)

By the way, that's some genuinely fine, upstanding journalism you've got there!...very credible. ;-)

free0352 said...

Capire?

No. You haven't put forth a strategy. All you've done is blame some American companies for radical islamists wanting to kill Americans and cease 1/3 of the worlds oil supply.

You literally have no solution. You just blame Bush - and me. Blame is not a strategy, denial is not a strategy.

Speak for yourself. Islamic radicalism ("Islamic fundamentalism") has been around for decades

Its actually older than America itself there chief. Must be Halliburton's fault. Dick Chaney must have invented time travel, went back in time like Dr. Who, and caused Wahabism.

What was your reference source for this one?...The Daily Caller?

How bout VICE News, their source?

You've got nothing, which is probably why people won't vote for green (the new red!) candidates, not the "corpocracy."





Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "You haven't put forth a strategy."

The "strategy"? I don't know how to make it more clear for you. The "strategy" is unfolding as it was planned. Perpetual and permanent war has always been, and always will be, the "strategy". Well, until we force a total paradigm shift, anyway.


"You literally have no solution."

I do, but you never heed what I propose. As mentioned for the umpteenth time, the solution to permanent war (which is solely to fill the coffers of the war benefactors), is to eliminate "standing armies".

This is not a radically new idea. It was proposed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. You might want to read what they said about this subject. You just might learn something.


"You just blame Bush - and me."

I blame Bush (and Obama, and all modern presidencies going back to at least Reagan) for leading the masquerade. I blame you (and others like you) for following.


"Blame is not a strategy..."

You're right...it's an acknowledgement of the cause.


"...denial is not a strategy."

Right again! So why do you continue to deny that the military-industrial-security complex is the root cause of permanent war?! My god, the 34th president of the United States laid it out very clearly on television in January of 1961! Why do you deny his very articulate message?

Yes, you're absolutely right: Denial is not a strategy; it's refusing to understand the truth when it's staring you in the face. It's refusing to see what's really going on, and instead always accepting everything at face value.

Denial leads to...well, being a tool -- like you!

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

The "strategy" is unfolding as it was planned.

No your strategy Einstein. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. Probably why people won't vote for green (The new red!) candidates. Not so much the Koch Brothers or the "Corpocracy."

As mentioned for the umpteenth time, the solution to permanent war (which is solely to fill the coffers of the war benefactors), is to eliminate "standing armies".

So literally what you are saying is that in response to the establishment of an Islamist, terrorist state who is threatening to march all the way to Rome, currently massacring people, and threatening to attack America is to disband the standing army.

Probably why nobody votes for green (The new red!) candidates. Nobody takes seriously in the presence of a resurgent Russia, and ISIS the idea that the federal government should send the entire active duty army a pink slip.

My god, the 34th president of the United States laid it out very clearly on television in January of 1961!

Right after he suggested invading Vietnam. We talked about this remember, or do I have to quote the context of that quote again?

Here, let me sum up all your following comments.

"Its Bush's fault and you're racist. Teabagger, Koch Brothers, Corporate Personhood, MIC-conspiracy, endless war."

Literally you've haven't put forth one policy idea. Its like trying to debate a Berkeley student's bumper. Only the bumper is has more policy ideas.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Oh wait, [your strategy] doesn't exist."

You're right, it doesn't; not until "no standing armies" is made policy and enforced. I thought I was very clear about this. Apparently not.


"Probably why people won't vote for green (The new red!) candidates. Not so much the Koch Brothers or the 'Corpocracy.' "

You keep repeating this refrain, unfortunately (or not), I don't understand your feeble attempt at humor.

Please rephrase.


"So literally what you are saying is that in response to the establishment of an Islamist, terrorist state who is threatening to march all the way to Rome, currently massacring people, and threatening to attack America is to disband the standing army."

First of all, if all it takes is a bunch of unorganized thugs and hooligans, that are half a world away, to make you quake in your boots and keep you up at nights, I'd surmise that all the armies in the world won't make you feel at ease.

Secondly, no, that's not what I said.


"Nobody takes seriously in the presence of a resurgent Russia, and ISIS the idea that the federal government should send the entire active duty army a pink slip."

I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say here with your Spanglish, but if you're implying that Russia is gunning for us, you're totally wrong. It's the other way around.


"Right after [Eisenhower] suggested invading Vietnam. We talked about [his farewell address] remember, or do I have to quote the context of that quote again?"

Yes, I remember vividly, and I recall showing you exactly what the address contained and what it was about, and then I recall you not refuting what I wrote.

Because you couldn't.


"Here, let me sum up all your following comments. 'Its Bush's fault...' "

And all his predecessors "back to at least Reagan" -- including Bush's successor.

How come you didn't catch that?


"...and you're racist."

Didn't write that you are, but think you're definitely anti-Muslim.


"[a] Teabagger..."

I believe you are.


"...[a] Koch Brothers [supporter]..."

Ditto.


"...[a supporter of] Corporate Personhood..."

Absolutely...


"...[a supporter of the] MIC-conspiracy..."

Ditto.


"...[and a proponent of] endless war."

Double ditto!


"Literally you've haven't put forth one policy idea."

My proposal of "no standing armies" doesn't count as a "policy idea"? It counted as a "Bill of Rights idea" to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. That's good enough for me.