Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, May 24, 2006.
This could not say it better.
Just finished this read.
Bush is more concerned about sticking to his policies then he is about weather they are right or wrong.
At the end of his term in office the country may be in shambles but at least he could say he wasn't a "flip flopper".
George unfortunately lacks the gene that allows him to be flexible and "evolve" with current events.
Yeah, that was a good article.
More people in the media need to call Bush out on his misrepresentation of the people.
It's a little far to the left for me, but he made some salient points for sure.
Bush does not care about much of anything at this point.
He's done all the damage he could and his cronys are set for life.
Dobbs is right on with this article, but the reality goes far deeper.
Corporations OWN our leadership.
You can't get elected unless you have tremendous financial backing.
Once elected, it's time to repay your masters.
Corporations only care about profit and cheap labor enables them to make more profit.
And what do the corporations care when they can afford to run as far away from you and your middle class anger as they want.
Oh I'm sure they don't care as long as laws permit them to sidestep
responsibilities to their workforce.
I'm pretty sure we'll see many more corporations dumping their retirement plans and health care responsibilities while CEO's walk away with huge nest eggs.
The only solution is voter action.
Now THAT's what I call liberal media! About damn time!
you find lou "no st. patrick's day" dobbs left?
i must ask (and you too, lee, now that i've just seen your post), what exactly about dobbs' piece is liberal?
Assuming that you're serious (which I am not sure about), what in that article could be construed as being "to the left"? Especially "far to"?
**edit**It appears I have become redundant...
Nothing- I'd call it sensible. But it seems that anything that makes logical sense is labeled as liberal these days. BTW- didn't you see my smiley?
This would only be logical seeing that anything "right' or "conservitive" seems to make little to no sense.
or -- anything that is critical of the administration is deemed liberal. i suppose my continued use of Liberal in the somewhat modern-post-classical sense is doomed to failure.
yes, but i assumed that was because the piece made you happy!
Dobby tells it like it is, but he's also spitting into the wind. A person of his stature could be in China and UAE cutting the deals rather than on TV complaining about them - it would be a lot more profitable. Still, the American electorate has seen fit to push the cart into a ditch for the last two elections, I don't have a lot of optimism that they won't do the same for a few more.
That's why even though I respect Dobbs, I think he made the wrong choice - it just doesn't pay to have too much invested in trying to change the system, especially when the people you're trying to benefit just don't care.
It's not very reassuring for non-US folks like me to read articles like that. The world is crazy enough as it is, without the states, our superpower, ripping itself apart.
Maybe its someone else's turn to "run the world".
As GWB said "Being president is hard".
Ill nominate France.
Exactly - its a power vacuum. UK/Europe should make the most of it by building strong diplomatic, cultural, and financial ties with the rest of the world and isolating rogue and hostile regimes. (Which would probably include the USA by many people's definition!)
I would gladly let Europe take over. We'd have a more progressive society hopefully.
Damn that Lou Dobbs -- he's a downright Trotskyite!
BTTM, nice to see you around the cesspool again...
Reason #456 why Thucydides and Gibbon are back in my to-read list.
Umm... How'd they do in Bosnia? Europe hasn't done a very good job of settling world conflicts so far. Hopefully that will change.
Wow- and WE'RE doing a great job?
Not right now. But we did do a pretty good job under Clinton, thanks especially to Madame Secretary. Europe wrestled with Bosnia for years before we took action.
Lou is right... at first look at immigration reform I was very much for Bush's idea of a workers program. I watched this documentary, "A Day Without A Mexican" and it really showed how those from Mexico have played an important part in our economy over the years. Then slowly I became to realize that those hispanic workers are being used to generate profit for huge corporations who honestly don't care about the United States Economy or the welfare of their cheap labor. So I began to come to my senses, we need to end this illegal immigration and fill our fields and construction sides with American workers who are looking for jobs. This would benefit by getting those who are on welfare now out into the business world (saving the government billions of dollars in the long run). That is to say though that people would take those jobs. So still I am skeptical on that issue. Work Permits are never a bad idea when there is an industry that needs workers to in turn help the economy, but there would have to be harsh laws governing the use of the system (ie. no American who could do the job could be turned down).
At the same time I say this, part of me feels like a savage, leaving the hispanics to find their own way in Mexico to have a better life. However, look at Nepal and all the people who have revolted against their government for change. Maybe things will get better there in the long run? Perhaps Mexicans (and they seem to really love Mexico) need to revolt and make change in that country.
One of my classmates told me, her family didn't want to move to the United States, her parents came to work and send money to the rest of the family. As a man of compassion, I would love to sit here and see this work out for that family, at the same time both her parents and America is being used to make a better life for these people (hopefully) and perhaps they could revolt and help themselves.
I would love it if the United States (among other 1st world nations) could help EVERY SINGLE nation in need. However, we can't. We can't fight everyone's battles or provide for everyone. It makes me wish that everyone could be happy, but I guess in this situation is is (as Lou Dobbs points out) more important that America doesn't become a third world country. It is important that we do for Americans what is right and pure and we focus on the Americans as time progresses. So in many ways Lou Dobbs does indeed hit the nail on the hammer.
I regret now arguing with my parents on the issue, My stepmom is a teacher, in Dallas they were debating on whether or not to hire illegal immigrants to teach (who are college-educated of course). If something like that spread, my stepmom could very easily be out of a job because she is not bilingual.. She will be taking spanish classes soon to become better qualified to teach in texas.. that is all besides the point and I won't waste my time discussing everything that I have argued with my parents about. But because of my thoughts above I have argued with them, as I thought the worker's program to be something we needed. They felt differently.
I still feel wrong, being so selfish, but I guess that is allowed and it is for the better of this nation.
I'm almost 50, so I remember a time when the Democrats were a firm majority on Capitol Hill and did care about representing those millions of middle-class Americans.
Bush and the Republicans are a lost cause, but for the Democrats there is a message in this: there are 200 million people asking for you to help them with their medical insurance, their savings, their pensions, their search for jobs, their civil rights.... What are you waiting for?? Go get 'em.