 |
New Civilization News: A Right Wing Lexicon |
Category: Politics 17 comments 12 Jul 2005 @ 12:48 by jazzolog : Climate ChangeThere is no such thing as "global warming". Climate change is natural and a good thing. If you run out of water you always can buy some from a conservative. All the hurricanes in Florida actually are God's test of Jeb Bush to be sure he is the Chosen to run for President. 12 Jul 2005 @ 13:27 by jazzolog : Spinning Yes, the right wing uses the term, but it is more of a natural unfolding of events for them. Sometimes a conservative has circulated through a liberal period of his/her life and then gone around to being a conservative again---towards the end. Circular motion is seen as natural. Take Scott McClellan for instance. Do you think he sees anything but a logical pattern of development in these quotations? YAHOO! News CIA Leak Quotes By The Associated Press Mon Jul 11, 5:26 PM ET Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan when asked by reporters whether President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the leak of a CIA officer's identity: Sept. 29, 2003 Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that? A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove. Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today. A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that." Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?" A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was. ___ Oct. 7, 2003 Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked? A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did. ___ Oct. 10, 2003 Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands. Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? A: They assured me that they were not involved in this. Q: They were not involved in what? A: The leaking of classified information. ___ July 11, 2005: Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose? A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing. Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved. A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation. Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved? A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... . Q: Any remorse? A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing. Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_quotes_1 25 Jun 2006 @ 22:51 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : A few more examples.... Memorable wisdom of the Bush Camp: Dead or alive Last resort Mission Accomplished Last throes We don’t torture Great Job Brownie Slam Dunk Bring ‘em on “Jail time is rehabilitation”(during 1999 primary on increasing spending on drug rehabilitation, evidently not applicable to drunk drivers or daughters of presidents and governors) “Everything isn’t black and white” (comment on his dealings with Harkin Company) “FISA is old, it was passed in 1978.” Of course, it isn’t as old as the Constitution but the administration doesn’t seem to be bound by that either &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& I suppose jmarc was commenting on this entry? It's something a friend sent, quite some time ago. I should perhaps have attributed it to whatever its source was. But at the time it didn't seem to matter. At least not to me. 26 Jun 2006 @ 22:46 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : Odd I never heard that one: “Together, America Can Do Better.” Are you sure Democrats and Progressives say that? It is rather simple, in the pejorative sense, I'll admit that. But I lost you with the beginning "cut and paste" comment. Does that mean the following wasn't yours and that it comes from another source? Or did you take the time to compose the whole piece yourself? I'm kind of busy right now and don't have too much time. (I promise to get back to this later.) But quickly looking over some of the Democratic "cliches" I agree. They are rather moronic and I would never say them myself. So why should I ever defend them? For the tone of your comment was a bit challenging. Hmmmm, it's the "liberals" again who are guilty of treason, godlessness, unAmericanism, and whatever else. Is that right? At least that's what Coulter says.... gottago. Later. 27 Jun 2006 @ 02:39 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : Dreck Most of this is empty boilerplate and used by both parties. "Glittering generalities," as my ninth grade civics class teacher aptly described these clichés. And when it comes to policy the piece offers a morass which would take a great deal of time to untangle. I do want to comment on a few of the clichés though. "Grim milestone." Wouldn't you call the death of 2000 or 2500 American soldiers a "grim milestone" too? It might be a newscaster’s cliché but it does seem accurate. And today on the news I heard approx 50,000 Iraqi civilians have died too. Among milestones that seems pretty grim too. "Hopeless quagmire." Well, I don't know if the quagmire is completely hopeless, but it is pretty unnecessary. And it is a quagmire. And a tragedy. One can be forgiven, I think, for thinking the war may be hopeless. Since the Iraqis may not want to play ball by American rules. Considering the incompetence and stupidity of this wasteful war that cliché seems to have some validity. "Culture of corruption." Actually, that one is pretty good. It's simple. It's true. It's has a neat descriptive accuracy. I like it, in fact. You're not going to tell me it's not true, are you? Or could it be you may feel at home in such a culture? In the world of Tom DeLay and the K Street project, not to mention the administration's lies regarding the war? Have I just indulged in another "liberal" cliché? "Bush lied, kids died." But can I help it if some these clichés are true? True enough, though, the Democrats can be pretty awful, and corrupt too. That’s why I keep a certain distance, and don’t, as a rule, defend them. There are some I like. Sure. But I will admit the Demos have had their cultures of corruption too. Boss Daily comes immediately to mind. Carmine Desapio. What a character. I remember visiting the Tamawa Club when I was a kid: there they were, the cast from The Godfather, all smoking cigars and wearing dark glasses in a dark room. I suppose the author of this piece got most of the rest from Democratic campaign ads. Yes, it's trash. Boilerplate. The stuff both parties engage in. Dumb soundbites. But Karl Rove is your man if you want to relish some truly finely crafted dirt. He knows how to bring a campaign to life. I certainly won't deny that. It's getting late..... Time to hit the sack... Happy dreams. 27 Jun 2006 @ 16:05 by jazzolog : We CAN Do Better Oops... June 18, 2006 HARRISBURG — When members of the House Republican caucus gathered on the marble steps of the Capitol Rotunda last May 3, they presented quite a tableau. The caucus had just done the unexpected in postponing a vote on a "compromise" property tax bill to expand an existing rebate program for low- and middle-income senior citizens. As House Majority Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, outlined the reasons for delaying a vote on the Senate-passed bill, the rank and filers behind him started chanting "We can do better..." Those wanting to do better hoped to deliver more relief to middle-class taxpayers. The GOP lawmakers weren't able to agree on an alternative sales tax plan, so they settled this week for the very rebate bill at which they had stuck up their noses six weeks before. http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/NEWS/606180339/-1/NEWS Hmmmm... 27 Jun 2006 @ 22:37 by jmarc : yeah it hurts when people use your own words against you. More "quotes" I hate Republicans and everything they stand for. I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.'' "We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing." "Now that we're on dog pee, we can have an interesting conversation about that. I do not recommend drinking urine…but if you drink water straight from the river, you have a greater chance of getting an infection than you do if you drink urine." —teaching an eight-grade "You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." Examples of the fearless leader of the democrats parading his smarts for the world to see,and trying to bring the country together. 28 Jun 2006 @ 00:21 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : But are these "my" words? Okay. So you disagree with much of what he said up there. No, they're not my words, though I do agree with some of his sentiments. And think that in a fuller context they have some validity. I won't go through each quote, though, which demand a lengthy commentary, since he attempted to summarize in a few words complicated issues. A result, perhaps, of the time demands our superficial news media impose? Let me just take the last quote. The Republicans are falling all over each other in the Congress to give the rich tax cuts. Their hearts bleed for millionaires who have to pay an inheritance tax. And who was it who had to wait eight hours on line in the last election in order to vote? Poor black folk, mostly, in Democratic districts. Now if that isn’t “class warfare,” as well as cynical, I don’t know what is. I think you owe me one now. Since I defended Howard Dean’s words. Not mine, mind you. His. Most of the folk on my general side of the line think for themselves. Sound bites - such as “cut and run,” “treason,” and some other current obfuscations, don’t provide me with any form of a mental crutch. Or at least I attempt to avoid them. And when I defend someone’s words they are usually mine. Here’s a hilarious piece by Molly Ivins on the latest...... Oh, they do slip and slide....... Molly Ivins: An Epic Week of Cutting and Running http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060626_molly_ivins_cutting_and_running/ Posted on Jun 26, 2006 By Molly Ivins AUSTIN, Texas—And then along comes Cut’n’Run Casey. We spend all last week listening to cut’n’run Democrats talking about their cut’n’run strategy for Iraq, and the only issue is whether they want to cut’n’run by the end of this year or to cut’n’run by the end of next year, and oh, by the way, did I mention that Republicans had been choreographed to refer to the Democrats’ plans as cut’n’run? As Vice President Dick ("Last Throes") Cheney said Thursday, redeployment of our troops would be “the worst possible thing we could do. ... No matter how you carve it—you can call it anything you want—but basically it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans don’t have the stomach for this fight.” Then right in the middle of Cut’n’Run Week, the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., held a classified briefing at the Pentagon and revealed his plan to reduce the 14 combat brigades now in Iraq to five or six. And here’s the best part: Rather than wait till the end of this year or, heaven forefend, next year, Casey wants to start moving those troops out in September, just before whatever it is that happens in early November. They don’t call him George W. Jr. for nothing. One has to admit, the party never ends with the Bush administration. The only question about Cut’n’Run Week is whether they meant to punctuate a weeklong festival of referring to Democrats as the party of “retreat” and “the white flag” with this rather abrupt announcement of their own cut’n’run program. Was it an error of timing? I say no. I say Karl Rove doesn’t make timing mistakes. This administration thoroughly believes the media and the people have a collective recollection of no more than one day. Five days of cut’n’run, one day off and BAM, you get your own cut’n’run plan out there. Republicans have, in fact, a well-developed sense of aesthetics. Regard the superb pairing of the decision not to raise the minimum wage with the continued push to repeal the estate tax. House Republicans had almost opened their marble hearts and raised the minimum, now at $5.15 an hour, to a whopping $7.25 an hour by 2009. (Since 1997, when they last raised it, members of Congress have hiked their own pay by $31,000 a year.) This might have gone well with their decision to reduce the estate tax yet again, so that only the top half a percent of estates will pay it, while it will cost the treasury $602 billion over the first 10 years—but even better, no increase in the minimum wage to match the vote to decrease taxes on the very, very, very richest. Is that suave or what? Also, very slick move on the Voting Rights Act extension. No amendments, no exemptions, the South rose again and blocked the whole deal. Which Southern state do you think will be the first to pass laws to hold down the black vote? My money is on ’Bama—for sentimental reasons. And now, on to flag burning. What flag burning, you may well ask. Just because something doesn’t happen is no reason not to outlaw it. Or, for that matter, not to amend the Constitution of the United States. I am considering introducing an amendment to require everyone in the audience at “Peter Pan” to clap for Tinkerbell. I believe 99.8% of them do, but that’s no reason not to amend the Constitution. I don’t believe we should allow people to be different. If someone wants to burn a flag as symbolic political protest, I believe they should be beheaded. Also, flipping the bird at George W. should merit the same—but not flipping off Clinton, Bill or Hillary. To find out more about Molly Ivins and see works by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com. 28 Jun 2006 @ 17:25 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : Howard Dean Like every other aspect of politics, there's little logic in our American attitudes. We here in the US constantly clamor for more honest and truthful politicians. But when one comes along, he is often dumped on for being out of line. Maybe that's why so many politicians are timid. The Republicans, so it appears to me, have this fundamental problem better under control. They often define the debate, with extremely simplistic gut issues and slogans. The Democrats, on the other hand, are often afraid to speak what's on their minds, paying dearly for it later on. John Kerry comes to mind. If only he had been able to come to grips with his Iraq war vote - a shameful thing - we might have another president today. And the Democrats, as a rule, become dumb in the face of an absolute irrationality. For the simpleton who's more concerned with gay marriage or flag burning goes out and votes. And speaking to this voter about global warming (having probably swallowed the standard corporate line), the war, the economy, health care and other enormously important issues may be a waste of time when he, that voter, is blind with his own jingoism or fear. Many Democrats liked Howard Dean in the run up to the last election because he openly bucked the accepted national positions on Iraq. Remember, there were those (rightwingers, neocons, con artists) who were only too willing to smear a critic of the war as "unpatriotic." Now critics of the war run the risk of being accused of "not backing the troops." A flip in logic if ever there was one. For this gives carte blanche for killing as many American soldiers abroad as our government desires, without the possiblity of ever asking why. And it closes the chance of bringing the troops home before more are killed. Which means two things: one, that our troops are expendable, and two, that there is an unlimitted supply. It also means that ramming your head against a wall is a better policy than thought. I'm tempted to go through the collection of Howard Dean quotes and perhaps explain them to jmarc. Not understanding the intent of his words is sad. But maybe I'll watch our Senate debate the flag burning ammendment instead. Now there is a real issue. 28 Jun 2006 @ 21:09 by Cyrus @63.240.228.37 : To Quinty I absolutely agree. Case in point: our last presidential election. I know that John Kerry and his followers were big fans of the "politically correct". They championed intellectual speeches and polite attacks, whereas the Republicans, and especially Bush & Co., did not hesitate to drag Kerry into the mud. After all, the Shrub and his minions did not mind attacking McCain during the primaries in the most vicious, repulsive ways. And so that is the problem: the Democrat brings a knife to the gunfight whereas the Republican brings a bazooka. On two key points, Kerry lacked aggressiveness: 1. If he was truly honest about his record, he should have openly smeared those dirty liars from "Swift" for even questioning his military record in 'Nam and attacked Bush for being a "draftdodger", so to speak. 2. He should have used the flip-flop criticism to his advantage. After all, only fools don't change their opinion when everyone else tells them that they are wrong. The Shrub's stubbornness was a more than ample demonstration of his lack of leadership. Its ashame that the Democrats lack the backbone to break the Republicans into half. 28 Jun 2006 @ 21:30 by Cyrus @63.240.228.37 : To All Conservatives "The Great American Equation" Conservative = maintain the status quo (to CONSERVE) Therefore, Conservatives would have gladly paid tribute and respect to the King of England and not even thought about a Revolution; after all you do have to maintain the status quo!! Therefore, American Revolutionaries are just that: "REVOLUTIONARIES" and therefore the exact opposite of CONSERVATIVES. Therefore "REVOLUTIONARIES" are actually liberals. Since the founding fathers were as American as American gets, liberals are more American that Conservatives... Food for thought.. 28 Jun 2006 @ 22:42 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : There's much to ponder in your remarks Cyrus. And each time I reread them I see more. To be brief, though, these same persons who honor Martin Luther King today (are they merely attempting to lure some of the black vote to vote Republican?) would have been on the side of J. Edgar Hoover forty years ago when the rightwing was smearing King as a "Communist." There is some progress, isn't there? Since at least it's not acceptible to be a segragationist anymore. And the Republicans are attempting to claim King as one of their own. (Though never mind that the rightwing's antecedents got upset at bucking the status quo. Or that President Nixon maneuvered the racist Southern Democrats into the Grand Old Party. With his Southern Strategy. Which, by the way, is complaining about the Voting Rights Act today.) What would Jefferson think if he were alive today? Who knows? But unless he lost his mind - this high Enlightenment philosoph - it's hard to believe he would be a Neocon camp follower. Or that the folly of our current president would at all convince him. I think that's thoroughly safe to say. 28 Jun 2006 @ 23:00 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : Cyrus... Kerry could of said: "Show me your medals, Mr. President." "Share your combat experiences in the field with me. As two old vets I'm sure we would have much to share." Yes, he should have flung this back into their faces. Scorned and ridiculed them. I imagine, though, Kerry became paralyzed at the unbelievable stupidity of this debate. A formidable wall. One which may have paralyzed him with its immense irrationality, fearfully not wanting to lose any vote. Rove - need it be said? - is up to his old tricks again. I wonder. Would he have run the next presidential campaign from prison if had been prosecuted? Is there any way of finally escaping Karl Rove? 28 Jun 2006 @ 23:02 by Cyrus @63.240.228.37 : I love Jefferson Of all the US presidents, I believe Jefferson is one of the most underrated. A liberal at heart and an enlightened man, he probably was one of the only men of his time to maintain a relationship with an African American (and from what I remember foster a child from her). He was a fine Architect and truly inspired. There is a world of difference between him and our current President. While Bush probably feels good about himself receiving applause from other people after communicating mostly intangible gibberish, Jefferson was not one who really sought the limelight. Jefferson never actually delivered a State of the Union speech before Congress, believing that delivering a speech from the highest pedestal stinked too much of Royalty. How would he then feel about some of us today who address an official (President) elected by US, TO SERVE US, by the very royal "Mr. President"?? Why don't we call him "Your Royal Highness" while we're at it??? It's a Presidential Masquerade: how we have truly forgotten that a President is supposed to SERVE the people; instead we are serving him and his petty interests... 28 Jun 2006 @ 23:12 by Cyrus @63.240.228.37 : To Quinty; Political Savvy Yes, I think Kerry lacked political savvy. Here is one example of the ingenius insight Winston Churchill had one day: A lady, I believe the wife of one of his political opponents, said one day, "If I were your wife Sir, I would put poison in your tea". To which Churchill answered, with a booming smile, " Madam, if I were your husband, I would gladly drink it!!" Touche!!! 21 Nov 2006 @ 20:47 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Farewell to "Stay the Course...." Keith Olbermann bids farewell to "Stay the course." {link:http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUdx2tNICqI|Stay the Course} 21 Nov 2006 @ 20:59 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Good news! Hunger no longer exists in America! According to the AP "35M In U.S. Had 'Food Insecurity' In 2005." At least according to the new definitions provided by the US Department of Agriculture. Click here for the original AP story regarding these findings on {link:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/15/national/main2186457.shtml|food insecurity} (AP) The number of people struggling with hunger in the United States fell in 2005, the first such decline in six years, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday. Last year, 35 million people suffered food insecurity, meaning they didn't have enough money or resources to get food. The number was 38 million in 2004. The department had waited until after Election Day to issue the annual report, prompting accusations from Democrats that the Bush administration was playing politics with hunger. Despite the positive news, the report is still drawing criticism, this time because analysts decided not to use the word "hunger" to describe how hungry people are. Changing the wording "is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families," said the Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger group. "We should not hide the word hunger in our discussions of this problem, because we cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens," Beckmann said. The report found: There were more people with very low food security — those who are worst off. The number was 10.8 million, up from 10.7 million in 2004. There were 24 million people with low food security, down from 27.5 million in 2004. The group doing the worst, whether measured by food insecurity or poverty, "isn't being helped enough to start shrinking, even though the economy keeps growing," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger group. Weill said the overall drop in food insecurity shows the effectiveness of programs like food stamps and school meals. "But it's not cause for anybody letting up — it's just a sign that these programs work, and we need to redouble our efforts to get them to more people in need," Weill said. In the report, the terms "low food security" and "very low food security" replace the old descriptions of "food insecurity without hunger" and "food insecurity with hunger." The change was recommended by the National Academies, which advise the government on science and medical issues. Among the states, Hawaii saw the biggest drop in the number of hungry people, from 12.9 percent in 1998 to 7.8 percent in 2005. South Carolina saw the biggest increase, from 11 percent in 1998 to 15.5 percent in 2005. The hunger report is based on Census Bureau data on poverty, which stopped climbing in 2005. ©MMVI, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Other entries in Politics 1 Jul 2010 @ 02:21: PHILIPPINES’ NEW PRESIDENT: AKBAR OR NERO? 4 Jun 2010 @ 08:30: SCUTTLE EU NOW, BEFORE 4TH REICH OPTION AWAKENS! 17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to change.gov 8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream 7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't... 6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW 5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world? 5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American 26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively 26 Oct 2008 @ 10:27: OBAMA IS AMERICA’S MAN OF THE HOUR
|
11 Jul 2005 @ 18:06, by Paul Quintanilla