Bitsy

Trying to co-opt Kennedy as a Republican is old hat. It seems there is always a new surge when Gallup releases their annual poll of the highest rated modern presidents that shows Kennedy ranked #1 since the poll was initiated in 1990. Reagan considered government the problem where as Kennedy considered government to be a partner for addressing the issues we faced. Listen to his words from the SOTU speech in 1962; listen to the government programs he wants expanded...SS to include Medicare, unemployment insurance, education, etc....listen for yourself and you will see that this man would never be one of today’s Republicans. http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/175.html

Palin’s cancellation because of safety concerns at an event in Colorado was enough to send a Denver Post journalist searching for “the altar of liberal hate” that was denying help to military families and children. Read more: Littwin: So hateful, even Sarah Palin won't come here? - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_17321890?source=commented-#ixzz1DN6QEyMk

There is so much wrong about this, I don’t know where to begin. First, let us look at the organization. http://www.denverpost.com/dontmiss/ci_17312383 Next, why did the event have to be” sacrificed on the altar of liberal hate”? There are many other speakers available for such a good and noble cause; after all, the event is not scheduled until May. I am sure there are many who would welcome the chance to help families with loved ones in the military. And this, “but cites last month’s tragic shootings in Tucson along with an “increase in negative rhetoric” that raises concerns for Palin’s safety.” However, if you listened to the right wing after the events in Tucson, “negative rhetoric” did not contribute to the violence of that day. Lastly, May 2 is also the date of a NBC/Politico 2012 Republican presidential candidates debate, to be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. At last, the crux of the matter…the likely scenario is that little item was not on her calendar when she accepted the invitation to speak in Colorado but playing the victim role comes easier to Palin than admitting a scheduling conflict…and especially since she has so those who buy into her role as the victim.

If the Muslim Brotherhood somehow gains control of Egypt if Mubarak steps down, which I do not see happening, it will be due to lack of organized opposition. And, that is one of the many faults in supporting a dynastic dictator for 30 years. There is much to dislike about the Muslim Brotherhood but I do not see them as the likely successor to Mubarak, unless many in the West continue to express the ‘better the devil you know’ approach to this crisis. If we refuse to support today’s protestors because of this fear, ultimately we will almost assure ourselves of a radical Islamist government. We cannot continue supporting dictators in the ME while ignoring political opposition parties, even if they are Islamists. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/opinion/03atran.html?scp=1&sq=Egypt%E2%80%99s%20Bumbling%20Brotherhood%20&st=cse

How do you explain the conservatives support of and delight in seeing Saddam deposed by a foreign power?

Do you have a link for any of those assertions?

I can find no substantiation of the words contributed to Muhammad Ghannem and further, the key words to me are “reportedly told” in the second paragraph. If the US interferes with the will of the Egyptian people, we will have made a mockery of the word ‘democracy’.

The two with the most far-reaching influence on the US.

Better the people demanding the ouster of dictators than a foreign army. But even at that, our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that that the removal of tyranny does not necessarily lead to a stable democracy.

Geez, I didn't realize that we were graded on form here. Are you the Headmaster, Shady?

Don't forget egotistical clown! He didn't even know he was being zinged.

Huh?

Nice misunderstanding about what liberals want.....we want equal opportunity for all people...education, health and basic needs...equalizing opportunity does not mean equalizing wealth.

No, not false; you see things differently but it does not mean that you see the truth or even the partial truth. I am not sure where you have lived in the states or even if you have lived here, but my 70 plus years have been in the south and I do understand about racism. Anyone very familar with our politics would surely know that neo-cons are not or were never liberals. Our founding fathers tried to escape from a system of government that rewarded the wealthy, sadly we now have a system of economics where the rich get richer aided by the government....plutocracy, and it really matters little which party is in control of government. The rich seems to have gotten richer quicker when conservatives were in control but their trajectory has not been slowed much by liberals.

Only people unfamiliar with US politics, past and present, would think that I was being sarcastic.

Nice synopsis of the US political landscape, WIP.

I agree words hurt but I must say, I saw nothing in WIP's words that warranted a comparison to what happened in Tucson. That is why I am asking....what words of his were hurtful, as you say.

What exactly do you mean by this? Plese tell me what WIP said that warranted your comment?

In response to this being a light sentence, this might clear up a few things for those confused by voter fraud, which is a very serious offense and different than registration fraud. I think the sentence received was in line with other sentences. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567548/ns/politics-more_politics/Republican charged and convicted …..first he was charged with voter fraud but it appears he pled it down to registration fraud. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/20/gop-voter-fraud/ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/owner-of-registration-company-pleads-guilty-to-voter-fraud.html

I can't imagine that anyone even saw it......worldwide it only grossed $869,352

And I think this is relevant Here’s a few from the last election cycle……..and these are just a few of the candidates, I don’t have the time for the pundits or bloggers. - The GOP Senate candidate who recommended "Second Amendment remedies". Sharron Angle -- The GOP Congressional candidate who fired shots at a silhouette with his opponent's initials on it Robert Lowrey -- The GOP Congressional candidate who declared, "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd." Brad Goehring -- The GOP Congressional candidate who said he considered the violent overthrow of the United States to government an "option" and added that political violence is "on the table"? Stephen Broden

Off topic but just a quick aside that I thought you might find of interest about Scala’s views..women aren’t people; life, liberty and property can be denied us along with a whole host of other things, like choice. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-07/women-aren-t-people-under-scalia-s-constitution-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html

Well, I hope the kettle responds in like:

Bullsyes vs Crosshairs http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/10/bullseyes_vs_crosshairs.html#

Asking readers if they approve mounting a primary challenge to certain incumbents is a widely used approach and one that is an acceptable means to determine what areas to direct a group’s limited resources; it has never been viewed as “inciting violence” and further, it has never done such. I find it a huge stretch to compare the Kos’ post even with its bull eye’s to Palin’s “Don’t retreat; reload,” and putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets. Certainly, Rep. Giffords saw the difference as she never commented on Kos’ talk of a primary challenge to her but she did speak of Palin’s: “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.” There was never a retraction, apology or even a lessening of Palin’s rhetoric until now. A Palin aide is defending the use of the crosshairs and now denying that they were intended as a rifle scope but meant to be viewed as a “surveryor” symbol. Imagine that? After all these time and all the outrage directed toward Palin for that graphic, we are now being told of its symbolic innocence. Interesting comments to her backpedaling, especially this one: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Palin_aide_Never_intended_gun_sights.html