Reading the story about Mitt Romney's speech before the Clinton Global Initiative, and while leaving a number of questions asked in the story, sounded very reasonable and decent for the Republican candidate for president.
But I have to ask, with Romney's demostrated and proven history of lying for convenience, meaning saying whatever an audience wants to hear and then either denying it if it contradicted any previous statement or expressed view on an issue or simply denying he even said it, can and do you really believe him now?
Do you believe what he said in the speech? He knew it was an important speech and he knew he had to appeal to the audience for the series of speeches, so why wouldn't he just say what they wanted to hear and he looks somewhat presidential?
Why would anyone really believe his words when he's lied more often than not in the past? Why would you believe anything he says?
His goal is to win the campaign at any cost, even his own credibility. He'll say anything to anyone if it convinces them to vote for him. He's lied about President Obama. He's lied about what President Obama has done?
He's lied to blame the President for everything from an inept Congress to a failing economy. He's lied about the truth to the President's record. And then he's lied when confronted with the evidence and information which contradicts his statements and when it shows he lied.
But the real question is if you believe him, it's do you trust him to be president?
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Money & Congress
Looking at Congress these past years with the intensive lobbying efforts, fundraising work and outright buying representatives and now with the unlimited campaign donations and superpac's, there's one simple observation anyone with a modicum of common sense sees and knows, but members of Congress seems to deny or ignore.
Money hasn't met a politician it doesn't like.
It doesn't matter who's hand is holding the money, they'll still take it.
It doesn't matter how they want them to vote, they'll vote what they tell them.
It doesn't matter what they want them to say, they'll say it.
It doesn't matter which side of an issue they want them to stand, they'll stand there.
It doesn't matter about what the American people want, they'll defy public opinion.
It doesn't matter what their constituents want, they'll defy them too.
Nothing else matter, just what instructions come with the money. They'll shake the hand with the money and say, "Thank you.", and follow the instructions to the letter.
The only thing that matter to members of Congress anymore is money, it doesn't matter who or what the money represents, as once in their hands, it's who and what they represent, and not the American people.
It doesn't matter who's hand is holding the money, they'll still take it.
It doesn't matter how they want them to vote, they'll vote what they tell them.
It doesn't matter what they want them to say, they'll say it.
It doesn't matter which side of an issue they want them to stand, they'll stand there.
It doesn't matter about what the American people want, they'll defy public opinion.
It doesn't matter what their constituents want, they'll defy them too.
Nothing else matter, just what instructions come with the money. They'll shake the hand with the money and say, "Thank you.", and follow the instructions to the letter.
The only thing that matter to members of Congress anymore is money, it doesn't matter who or what the money represents, as once in their hands, it's who and what they represent, and not the American people.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Times Then & Now
Somethings, as they say, never change.
And so politics, power and war are those things. This is the union leader Eugene Debs' famous 1918 "Canton, Ohio" speech read by actor Mark Ruffalo. It landed Eugene Debs in prison for 10 years. Freedom of Speech, as we have seen throughout our history, is relative to who's in power.
Where were the voices over the war in Iraq? Who decided that war and who fought the battles? And why were the voices in asking questions silenced over the same reasons Eugene Debs was silenced?
Why haven't those in power be held accountable for an unjust war based on lies and fought with our money, as war for oil and profit?
Where are the results of the promises when it was sold? And where are those who gave those promises?
Then and now, same story, same reasons, and same people renewed.
This reading was part of a reading of Voices of a People's History of the United States (Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove) at All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA on Feb 1, 2007.
And so politics, power and war are those things. This is the union leader Eugene Debs' famous 1918 "Canton, Ohio" speech read by actor Mark Ruffalo. It landed Eugene Debs in prison for 10 years. Freedom of Speech, as we have seen throughout our history, is relative to who's in power.
Where were the voices over the war in Iraq? Who decided that war and who fought the battles? And why were the voices in asking questions silenced over the same reasons Eugene Debs was silenced?
Why haven't those in power be held accountable for an unjust war based on lies and fought with our money, as war for oil and profit?
Where are the results of the promises when it was sold? And where are those who gave those promises?
Then and now, same story, same reasons, and same people renewed.
This reading was part of a reading of Voices of a People's History of the United States (Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove) at All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA on Feb 1, 2007.
Easy to Find
I read the story of the crew from the History Channel TV show "Shark Wranglers" catch and tag great white sharks with instruments and GPS transmitters which people can track in real-time on their Website. Ok, for TV viewers to see them catch, tag and release large sharks but what about the sharks?
If anyone now can track the shark on the Website, who's to say a group won't track, capture and kill the shark for food or a commercial sport fishing company track and offer a wealthy person the opportunity to reel in a large shark for the trophy?
In putting the tag on the shark so anyone can locate it, then it literally puts a live target on the shark, a bounty anyone with a boat and gear to hunt and catch. The shark's life is now profit for a company or group and a prize for someone.
They note it's in the interest of science but environmentalists warn it's also in the interest of shark hunters. And the shark is now the easy to find victim. Where's the common sense? Where's the understanding for the shark to leave them alone?
Sorry, to me, this is stupid. Studying them is great. Tagging them is acceptable, but only if the scientist are the ones who can track it. To give the location to everyone may sound cool, and even help with education of sharks, but not to the shark.
Any bets the shark is caught and the tracking equipment left in the ocean with the spoilage?
If anyone now can track the shark on the Website, who's to say a group won't track, capture and kill the shark for food or a commercial sport fishing company track and offer a wealthy person the opportunity to reel in a large shark for the trophy?
In putting the tag on the shark so anyone can locate it, then it literally puts a live target on the shark, a bounty anyone with a boat and gear to hunt and catch. The shark's life is now profit for a company or group and a prize for someone.
They note it's in the interest of science but environmentalists warn it's also in the interest of shark hunters. And the shark is now the easy to find victim. Where's the common sense? Where's the understanding for the shark to leave them alone?
Sorry, to me, this is stupid. Studying them is great. Tagging them is acceptable, but only if the scientist are the ones who can track it. To give the location to everyone may sound cool, and even help with education of sharks, but not to the shark.
Any bets the shark is caught and the tracking equipment left in the ocean with the spoilage?
Monday, September 24, 2012
Punting
Remember when Romney criticized the President for "punting issues down the field"? Remember, the Middle East, and the other issues? Well, it seems the he does it too, despite the fact he says he's the President, if elected of course, who'll decide and act.
Well, not so fast there Mr. Romney. Didn't you talk about your plan to save Medicate and Social Security? In the plan to "save" Medicare you propose a bunch of changes to lower cost for everyone, which we know won't, but hey it's your idea, you forgot to tell folks the changes won't start until 2023.
Yeah, the changes wouldn't start for 10 years, long after you'd be out of office if you were elected to two terms. You just not only punting the issue down the field, you kicked out of the stadium, over the parking lot and into the next decade.
And you think we should believe anything you say about solving problems? The government and its programs for American isn't a company you just bought for Bain Capital. It's our government, our programs. We hired you and uou work for us, remember?
Next time you criticize the President for punting issues down the field, rewind your memory first before you open your mouth, and at least don't do what you criticize the President for doing, but then why do we expect you won't punt the issue and talk anyway?
Because that's all you know what to do and all you have, lies.
Well, not so fast there Mr. Romney. Didn't you talk about your plan to save Medicate and Social Security? In the plan to "save" Medicare you propose a bunch of changes to lower cost for everyone, which we know won't, but hey it's your idea, you forgot to tell folks the changes won't start until 2023.
Yeah, the changes wouldn't start for 10 years, long after you'd be out of office if you were elected to two terms. You just not only punting the issue down the field, you kicked out of the stadium, over the parking lot and into the next decade.
And you think we should believe anything you say about solving problems? The government and its programs for American isn't a company you just bought for Bain Capital. It's our government, our programs. We hired you and uou work for us, remember?
Next time you criticize the President for punting issues down the field, rewind your memory first before you open your mouth, and at least don't do what you criticize the President for doing, but then why do we expect you won't punt the issue and talk anyway?
Because that's all you know what to do and all you have, lies.
The Real Republicans
We now know how the Republicans think about jobs, veterans and the economy. Like we didn't already? Yes, we did but now the proof is in the bill, or the bill that failed in the Senate. And that's the tale of the real Republicans.
Senator Patty Murray sponsored the Veteran Jobs Corps Act to provide up to $1 billion over the next five year without increasing the annual deficit or the national debt, meaning it was revenue neutral. The bill would provide jobs and training for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans after the leave the service.
And the bill had a majority support in the Senate, 58 yes and 40 no, but the bill didn't pass because some of the Senators who actually wrote some of the provisions in the bill decided to filibuster the bill and the majority leader in the Senate couldn't get the necessary 60 votes to override the filibuster.
So there's what the Republicans think of veterans and jobs, a big fat, fucking no. No way. Natta. A minority won the day because of the rules and the majority lost. The American people lost. Veterans lost. We lost.
And that's what the Republicans want, no jobs, no help for veterans and tank this economy to blame the President. Sorry, Republicans, your vote is on this bill against the rest of us, along with your big fucking anti-Obama and anti-American sentiments and views.
Now we have a smoking gun for your arrogance and lies.
Senator Patty Murray sponsored the Veteran Jobs Corps Act to provide up to $1 billion over the next five year without increasing the annual deficit or the national debt, meaning it was revenue neutral. The bill would provide jobs and training for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans after the leave the service.
And the bill had a majority support in the Senate, 58 yes and 40 no, but the bill didn't pass because some of the Senators who actually wrote some of the provisions in the bill decided to filibuster the bill and the majority leader in the Senate couldn't get the necessary 60 votes to override the filibuster.
So there's what the Republicans think of veterans and jobs, a big fat, fucking no. No way. Natta. A minority won the day because of the rules and the majority lost. The American people lost. Veterans lost. We lost.
And that's what the Republicans want, no jobs, no help for veterans and tank this economy to blame the President. Sorry, Republicans, your vote is on this bill against the rest of us, along with your big fucking anti-Obama and anti-American sentiments and views.
Now we have a smoking gun for your arrogance and lies.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Books
Here's a thought some people forget. Closing libraries because you think they spread bad ideas or wrong values won't close the hearts and minds of people, the people who love reading, love books and love libraries.
Burning books because you want to destroy the public face of something doesn't burn the memories of them in the hearts and minds of people who love reading, love books and love places where books can be found and borrowed or bought.
Banning books because you don't want other to know about them let alone read them doesn't change the interest of others to read them and take the words into their heart and mind, people who love reading, who love books and who love where books are found to be read.
A book is just what it is, a book. What matters is the content, and that can't be closed, burned or banned no matter how hard you try and even creates more interest to read the books, especially those burned and more so those banned.
It's about the content of the book that matters, not the book itself, or do you not know about Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451"? Maybe you should, except if you burned or banned it. But then just ask someone who reads, they'll loan you their copy.
Burning books because you want to destroy the public face of something doesn't burn the memories of them in the hearts and minds of people who love reading, love books and love places where books can be found and borrowed or bought.
Banning books because you don't want other to know about them let alone read them doesn't change the interest of others to read them and take the words into their heart and mind, people who love reading, who love books and who love where books are found to be read.
A book is just what it is, a book. What matters is the content, and that can't be closed, burned or banned no matter how hard you try and even creates more interest to read the books, especially those burned and more so those banned.
It's about the content of the book that matters, not the book itself, or do you not know about Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451"? Maybe you should, except if you burned or banned it. But then just ask someone who reads, they'll loan you their copy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
