3. sucking corporatist cock

You should look up all the shit the democrats are fucking up with. Then you'll realize the majority are pretty much the same thing.

If they get in this term they will destroy the environmental protection agency

The EPA is responsible for maintaining numerous forests, peatlands, grasslands, and other such places with endangered species.

They also regulate the amount of toxins that are allowed to enter the atmosphere

in other words they are the only thing keeping business from plowing every available space in America to build a fucking stripmall for 400 pounder americans on their go karts

>>165369
Yeah, the Democrats are dickless wonders who carry corporate water, but at least they aren't proud of it. But they are still better than the Repubs, who just want to watch the world burn. Not saying that the system isn't rotten to the core, but there are some distinctions that still matter.

>I don't want to actually think for myself. I need other liberals to explain why I am a liberal.

I'm not saying Democrats are BETTER, I don't want some war between blues and reds here. I just want to know the things Republicans have been doing wrong. If you feel obliged, please, let me know what Democrats have done as well.

I don't care for the two-party system, but Republican hate is largely what I've heard for the past year or so.

>>165417

Are you this fucking retarded to think that this won't start that kind of war?

>>165407
Yeah, but they still are, so they're more deceptive about it, which isn't good.

>>165417
Well of course it's what you heard, since most of the news stations are left-leaning in nature. You could always watch nothing but Fox news, but then you'd probably make a new thread asking about all the things Democrats have FUCKED UP on the past few years.

Both take donations from special interests and ensure certain language that would hurt those interests never get incorporated to bills. Also, they each play politically with very important votes that should be a straight up or down without riders (things that are for their own districts, or unrelated to the main bill).

Republicans tend to be very pro-business but this also makes them corporatist and often times want to de-regulate industry that clearly needs it. Democrats are often too strict and create needless laws that aren't very effective. They also tend to start off with very popular ideas that would really change things but once the bill actually hits the floor it gets gutted because they have no backbone and can't betray their lobbyists (health care reform).

Both use war to their own advantage although I think many can agree the US has definetly accomplished its objectives lately (ignoring if those objectives are proper in the first place.) Democrats tend to have a fairly good track record for promoting social justice while Republicans have a good track record of keeping taxes low, (again, ignoring if that is good or bad).

Democrats want to spend during recessions and tax during prosperity to fund government while Republicans want the free market to run its course without using government too much to assist the economy (except big banks they both seem to prefer saving them.)

Democrats want to hold or increase levels of welfare and state aid to unemployed while republicans typically want to hold or reduce those levels.

1. Traded arms with Iran
2. Traded arms with Saddam Hussein
3. Shut down mental institutions across the US, causing hundreds of thousands mentally ill people to become homeless
4. Supported right wing militias in South America to overthrow and quell (IE - kill) socialist uprisings
5. "Trickle down economics"
6. Lied to the American people and congress about WMDs in Iraq
7. The War on Drugs
8. Attempted to cut all funding to PBS and Planned Parenthood
9. Voted to fund chemical contraception for horses, but to cut funding for contraception for women.
10. The Patriot Act
11. Extending The Patriot Act
12. Created the Mujahadeen/Osama Bin Laden
13. Attempted to redefine the legal definition of rape to exclude statutory rape, incestual rape, or drugged rape
14. Cut Pell Grants
15. Upholding unnecessary sanctions against Cuba

I could go on all night.

Republicans held back raising the debt ceiling until literally the last day before default in order to force political leverage on reducing the deficit. This resulted in a downgrading of our credit rating, which probably added billions to the interest we have to pay every year on our national debt.

But really OP, despite all the fucked up shit they've done since the time of Reagan, the only two things you need to know is that they destroyed the middle class and created the economic turmoil we are experiencing today.

>>165559
Less than half of these were in the last few years, and many of them were done in concert with Democrats. A few of them are just wrong.

>>165592
I don't care if they were done in "concert" with DINO's. They have all go back to republicans. And it's not like there's more than 3 or 4 true democrats/liberals in congress anymore anyway.

And please, prove to me which few are "just wrong."

>>165602
issue with first point is, things both sides did together aren't really things you can pin on Republicans specifically.

Well, actually only 12 strikes me as just wrong. The Mujaheden existed in Afghanistan before we got involved, same with bin Laden. We supported them, but that amounts for little. I think you are insinuating that we inadvertently created Al Qaeda, which is untrue.

>>165559
>12. Created the Mujahadeen/Osama Bin Laden

The mujahideen banded together themselves and were a response to the USSR-supported Afghan Communist party rule in 1977-1979, they weren't created by the US. Funding began under Carter. These groups (mostly Hekmatyar and other radicals) grew substantially not as a result of any partisan views. We funded the wrong ones because of our misunderstanding of the region and reliance on two-faced allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent the gulf states. The US was getting such a good bang for its buck against the Soviets anyway that any president would have adhered to that policy. Islamist terrorism against the United States wasn't even a glimmer in Osama's eye before 89.

Osama's hatred for the US was triggered by our perceived occupation of Saudi Arabia, when the Saudis accepted American troops to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam, rather than accept bin Laden's offer of his ragtag bunch of Arab mujahideen to defend the kingdom. We didn't create him, he was created by various super-radical versions of Islam (Wahhabism, Salafism, etc.) combining like a wildfire in Afghanistan, and the US was just the next source of perceived oppression.

If you're going to attack anyone for not getting to bin Laden, it should be Clinton and GW Bush Jr. Clinton lacked the foresight to declare the Taliban an enemy and recognize that we were beyond Cold War notions of an enemy. And he almost got him several times. The real fault (if any) should be placed on the less-than-hawkish types like Albright, Reno, and Sandy Berger, as well as the military brass (surprisingly) who avoided military action against bin Laden in the late 90s that would prevented all this. The blame is on Bush because be essentially ignored the problem, sidelined Richard Clarke, in favor of focusing on China, Iraq, etc (old problems). So yea, take that off your stupid list.

>>165657
>they weren't created by the US. Funding began under Carter.
>not created by U.S.
>funding began under Carter
>Carter is a U.S. president

Not trolling, I just don't understand what you mean.

>>165666
He doesn't know what he's talking about either. Nice 666 trips, btw.

Sen. Orin Hatch, a senior republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, made the decision to provide funding, weaponry and training (via CIA operatives) to the Afghan rebels/Bin Laden and said, even knowing what Bin Laden would subsequently do to America, that he would do it again because HURR DURR it helped stop communism.

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

Related list of bad shit.

>>165666
They created themselves and became militant I believe around 77 to counter the Communists (with Pakistani funding/arms). They were successful in undermining the Soviet-backed Afghan regime, and it looked like it was going to fail. So the Soviets invaded to prop up their client (murdering the previous leader and installing a puppet).

I pointed out that Carter funded them beginning in 79 because the poster suggested that it was a Republican-created problem. My point was that no one foresaw the problem at that time, and it wasn't a partisan issue at all. Sure it occurred under two Republican presidents (the second of who was indifferent to Afghanistan, which was a greater cause of problems).

>>165344

YOU WANT A LSIT OF REPUBLICAN FUCK UPS?

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

Here's a long, long list.

The long list:

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

The issue is that 1. you are acting like we created the resistance, we did not. 2. we were the primary or only funding/training/motivating force for the mujaheden. We were not. 3. implying that they would not have existed or been successful without our intervention. This is not true.

We funded rebels in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation, maybe that was good or bad, but that's a hugely different thing from "creating" a terrorist movement or an entire insurgency.

>>165369

There has been no equivalent of the "open letter to conservatives" as published by Russ King that documents liberal fuck ups.

No response.

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

>>165712
what are you talking about? the decision was made in the Carter cabinet almost immediately after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. you can read all about it in chapter 2 of Steve Cole's Ghost Wars, one of the most authoritative and substantial histories on the subject. It was largely pushed through by Brzezinski

>>165751
>>165745
>>165728

Wow.

I've not seen this list of conservative fuck-ups before. Quite an eye opener. I read the comments section, too. There has been no conservative response within the past year and a half. I guess liberals simply aren't as bad as conservatives.

>>165790
>Are they “unlawful enemy combatants” or are they “prisoners of war” at Gitmo? You can’t have it both ways.

People like to present this false choice because they don't understand the nature of terrorism. It's at once a criminal and military act. The entire US justice and military system should be employed to counter it. In fact, one should want to have it both ways.

>>165813
Except the US doesn't = the World.

>>165765
Like that matters, Al-Qaeda is a branch of the CIA anyway just ask Libya all about that.

>>165766
>>165751
>>165745
>>165728

Just watched Russ King on youtube, this open letter made the national news. I guess conservatives would like it to go away.

>>165813

The members of the taliban were fighting a war against the US, where the americans invaded afghanistan to get at bin laden.

As the taliban were the government at that time, you have to treat them as POWs.

protip: you cant go calling random people - even islamists - terrorists, unless they have committed or were engaged in conspiracy to carry out terror attacks.

>>165837
just leave, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>165844
When has that ever stopped somebody before?

>>165838

Why haven't I heard of this letter? Fucking hilarious.

>>165838

Why hasn't there been a conservative response?

>>165868
because that document simplifies complex issues and uses hyper-partisan sources to make its points. it addresses a lot of issues that should not be condensed to one sentence, or even one (one-sided) article, and it would require a book to refute. also, refutation would just create more hyper-partisan 'debate' that would lead nowhere. so just snicker amongst yourselves and keep demonizing the moderate and right elements of this country.

>>165868

Response from who? Conservatives are not republicans, and hes attacking republicans

>>165907
>so just snicker amongst yourselves and keep demonizing the moderate and right elements of this country.

Yeah, because the right hasn't been on a leftist witch hunt since the time of McCarthy, right?

Fuck off.

>>165920
Yeah, because the left hasn't been on a rightist witch hunt since the time of McCarthy, right?

Fuck off, partisan.

>>165907

Ah, because conservatives cannot respond with anything equivalent.

If they could, they would have.

>>165952
No, it really hasn't.

Any "witch hunt" against the right is generally caused and brought about by them habitually shooting themselves in the foot and making themselves look stupid in the process. Very little, if any at all, outside influence is needed for that to happen.

>>165962
man, it's just hyperpartisan bullshit. you're all part of the problem. whatever happened to our respect for moderation and the sanctity of real debate?

>>165412
Hahaha that pretty much sums them all up.

>>165907

There's no "simplifying" going on. I suggest you read the letter. It lists conservative hypocrisy, with every statement backed up with sources.

Conservatives cannot provide a similar list, because it isn't possible.

>>165980

It's not "hyperpartisan", it simply points out how full of shit conservatives are. And, the conservative response... nothing.

They can't respond because liberals are not as bad as they are, if they were conservatives would complie a similar list. But, they can't.

>>165813
The issue is over their Geneva Conventions status, according to which originally the USA was arguing that the detainees did not have certain rights as unlawful combatants that are only given to prisoners of war (captured uniformed troops.) The USA was arguing that there were two strict legal categories of "prisoner of war" and "unlawful combatant."

A person cannot alternately be one or the other depending on the context by which the USA wants to treat them, they are mutually exclusive.

Ironically, contrary to the US position the Geneva Conventions are explicit that there is no difference between the two when according certain rights such as indefinite detainment.

>>165976
Hilariously the House unamerican activities committee was originally started by Democrats on a witch-hunt for fascist infiltration.

>denying first responders to 9/11 healthcare benefits
woah there, they were denying lifetime free healthcare. Not the same thing at ALL.

>>166023
yes i'm sorry i should have read it more carefully, thanks. i occasionally like to lecture on the false choice presented by many of treating terrorism as an action warranting law enforcement or military response, and i misread this point as that.

>>166013
Lol, Democrats aren't that bad because they don't have a similar shit list.

What about allocating Social Security money towards other government expenses like the Democrats were up to in the 90s. Don't count?

>>166076

Where's the liberal shit list? Give me the link.

Protip: there isn't one.

>>166091
I just mentioned one piece of shit. Want me to find some more?

>>166076

There is no liberal shit list simply because they aren't as bad as conservatives.

>>166048
McCarthy/McCarthyism had nothing to do with the House Unamerican Activities Committee. McCarthy literally had zero involvement. He was on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate.

The committee you cited was created in 1938, at the very beginning of World War 2, to investigate Nazi propaganda. And yes, it was created by 2 democrats.

Go read a fucking history book, dunce.

>>166101
go to sleep kid

>>166100

Where? Give me the link.

There is no response to Russ King's "open letter to conservatives". There is no liberal shit list, like the one written by Russ.

Much buthurt?

>>166101

Why are you confusing conservatives with republicans?

>>166109

Is that the best you can do?

It's a sad day for conservatives.

>>166119

Read the letter:

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

Make sense now?

>>166070
S'cool, I think your point on the false choice of military/civil law enforcement response is well considered. On the other hand, I think that terrorism has been the new best excuse for militarizing law enforcement, even better than the previous excuse of evil drugs. DHS money buys police departments awesome new SWAT tanks.

>>166122
i'd rather not spend hours and hours explaining to some 20 year old know-it-all on the internet why he's being an idiot. get a job in government and learn how policy is made. read stuff from the other side. policy is not all black and white, it's never a hail mary pass, and it's never as simple as an article is making it seem.

>>166126
They confuse Conservatives with Republican on there as well.

>>165657

good answer bro, i had an essay all type out and then I saw this...

its nice to see someone who is actually informed about what happened.

I do think your blame on Bush is misplaced, more from the sense that getting Bin Laden stopped having any real value after 2001 beyond justice/moral booster, as such while they were clearly still looking for him resources were (imo rightly) being devoted elsewhere.

The afghan war and subsequent military and police actions against Al Qaeda has fucked it up beyond repair, its own actions have also marginalised it from pretty much everyone except the hardcore of the hardcore. Bin Laden stopped being a priority a long time ago.

Still, its nice they put one in his face.

>>166146

>policy is not all black and white...

It is apparent you have not read the open letter.

>>166157

You haven't read the letter, either.

And, if your best response is "Russ confuses conservatives with Republicans", it underscore Russ' point. Conservatives burying their heads in the sand.

>>166133
i think there's certainly a ton of money and equipment wasted on domestic law enforcement in the name of counter-narcotics that could be used elsewhere if the force was more intelligent and streamlined. i think we probably view the problems of drugs and terrorism in completely different lights, however, considering how you put that response. that doesn't make us bad people, but we'll probably never agree.

I think you could make the argument that the term "war on terrorism" was designed partly to justify increased military spending. it's just way more flashy (but ultimately destructive when you consider the enemy narrative) than "countering violent extremism."

as for the drug issue...again, the term "war on drugs" has certainly been used as a marketing tool in a similar way, but that doesn't detract from the goals. I think legalization of marijuana is a long time coming. But if you think legalizing other drugs wouldn't cause further problems in demand side countries I have to say I completely disagree. Also, the evidence suggests that demand-side measures (intervention, treatment, etc.) are somewhere in the order of 20 times more effective than those on the supply side. your thoughts?

>>166184
But the thing is he does confuse them, because they're not the same thing. Not all Democrats are liberals either, not all people are the same just because they're in a group together.

>>166158
>>165657

You guys want to know the real reason we didn't do anything about the Taliban? It's really easy. Taliban controlled most of the country. An oil pipeline through Afghanistan would bypass Russia and OPEC trade agreement countries to oil-rich US-friendly former Soviet satellites. We didn't have formal relations with any government in Afghanistan, but we had unofficial meetings on and off throughout the 1990s trying to negotiate for a transnational pipeline. I assume these negotiations are still ongoing, but I haven't been up to date on this since then.

>>166208

You haven't read the letter.

It is a call to conservatives to take back the Republican party.

>>166212

the real reason? neither of US gave a reason for why the Taliban weren't taken out from 94 - 2000...

protip: its not because of oil pipelines, its because of why the fuck would any give two shits about afghanistan when theres motherfucking Iraq and Iran and North Korea...afghaniwho?

>>166158
Actually I disagree, I think most of the blame can be placed on the fledgling Bush administration. There was a very solid handoff of intelligence led by Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke. They decided to keep Tenet and Clarke on, and Clarke was adamant about getting a cabinet-level meeting on terrorism and bin Laden (didn't happen until September 4, 2001). For years he had been advocating support for Massoud, but it was politically unfeasible against Pakistan during the second Clinton administration. When Bush came to office, the Massoud-Karzai alliance was a refreshing alternative to an unsure policy toward the Taliban that had existed for years. It should have been adopted, and Bush should have paid more attention to the myriad threats he was receiving every day from the CIA. Instead he downgraded Clarke to a deputy position and chose to focus on other foreign policy issues. Wolfowitz and Rice didn't press him on it either, and they should have.

>>166208

It is apparent you haven't read the letter. Russ asks conservatives to take back the Republican party.

>>166203
No, I just question that in most cases tanks and apache helicopters are justified requisitions for drug raids. Sometimes they may be. But take for instance the FBI raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Use of military equipment like tanks and helicopters were justified by the FBI lying in warrant affidavits that the cult had a "drug lab." That's plain ridiculous.

with regard to fighting terrorism being the a way to justify more military (equipment) spending, it's undeniably so. The federal government is pumping billions directly into militarizing police. The numbers speak for themselves.

>>166225
That's why its a shit list on Republicans/Conservatives? So that they would take their party back, from themselves? Lol.

>>166254

You haven't read the letter, have you.

>I grew up in a profoundly Republican home so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

>First, the invitation: Come back to us.

>>166239
Not the same guy you were replying to, but I think it's been overstated (by the Clinton admin members no less) how much emphasis they gave to the ingoing administration that Al Qaeda was a substantial problem. Clinton dropped the ball repeatedly during his admin dealing with it, not because he didn't think it was a problem, but (imo) because he didn't want to deal with the political conseqences of addressing it properly. He kicked the can down the road.

>>166212
You're right, there were attempts at negotiations between Unocal, the State Department, and the Taliban, but it stopped I believe in 1998. The Taliban rejected everything the Americans wanted because of their ideology. When Bhutto's government tried to intervene (this would have been great for Pakistan) it too was shunned. So pipelines are hardly reason we didn't kick out the Taliban. You can't find oil in every problem.

We didn't go after bin Laden and the Taliban for a lot of reasons. Pakistan supported them (for "strategic depth against India") and we wanted Musharraf to move the country back to democracy, and to curb the nuclear program. We also didn't see a great alternative. A lot of people though we couldn't deal with Massoud because he dealt heavily in the drug trade. It was also simply not an important region to most people in government, even after the embassy and Cole bombings.

>>166265

I just read the letter; it's pretty damning. I'm amazed conservatives haven't responded. I guess they can't provide a similar list on liberals.

>>165578
Our credit rating was going to be downgraded regardless. The only thing that could have stopped it was a focused plan on reducing our deficits, like the Republicans wanted. At this rate we might get downgraded again.

>>166281

no, conservativtes can't make a similar list. It isn't possible. hahaha

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

>>166234
My point was not that we would have done something, it's that yet again we were willing to negotiate with an oppressive government for monetary interests. If there wasn't an economic interest, you're right, we would have done nothing anyway.

>>166271
oh yea, there was a ton of kicking the can down the road. the al Shifa missile strike was a huge embarrassment, and they didn't want to repeat that during the impeachment trial. there's PLENTY of blame to put on Clinton, but I simply think there's more to put on the Bush cabinet: Rice, Rumsfeldt, Wolfowitz (not cabinet), Armitage. They were so focused on their own worldview that they ignored impending problems. Clinton will readily and honestly admit his shortcomings during this time. He did so in the 9/11 report. Same with Clarke. the Bush administration has done nothing of the sort. They even went on the offensive against these accusations during the 04 election, an offensive that was filled with absurd lies.

I'm NOT a Bush hater. I hate Bush haters, they have no idea what they're talking about. But on this issue, I believe he was to blame moreso than any other person for lack of foresight, thought, and emphasis.

>>166285
The justification specifically addressed the debt ceiling debate as a reason for downgrading. Raising the debt ceiling and addressing the budget crisis, contrary to only recent Republican belief are not mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that playing chicken with defaulting was fucking horrifying to the entire world.

>>166292

yeah but whats your point? For starters we are talking about a different administration, and secondly the US even when dealing with asshole regimes is often keep to point out their human rights records and try and improve things diplomatically.

Welcome to statesmanship where a billion different factors are taken into account before military action is undertaken!

>>166311

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

There is no evidence to support your claim "democrats are just as bad". They are not. If they were you eould give me a similar list as the conservative fuck-ups.

Here's the list of conservative lies, and hypocrisy agaiin:

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

>>166303
I agree with you there mostly. However, I personally don't believe that Sandy Berger's word should be trusted. I am absolutely convinced that the reason he was swiping papers from the national archives was because he was removing evidence specifically related to Clinton's handling of Al Qaeda.

>>166310
Whats wrong with being right? Even S&P pretty much said the exact same thing the Repubs were saying the entire fucking time when they downgraded our credit rating. If anything the Dems were responsible for "playing chicken".

>>166311

>The Democrats are just as bad if not worse...

Where is the evidence, I want a list with sources. I want a list as long as Russel Kings list of conservative lies, hyperbole, and hypocrisy. Only then might you have a point.

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

>>166332

No.

Republicans and democrats compromised, as usual. It was the Tea Part backed, newly elected Republicans that caused the problems.

>>166335

That list is a giant long mud slinging rant. It's immature to even respond with a list of your own.

>>166326
I've never heard of this issue, can you go into more detail? I'd rather not read wikipedia.

>>166322
My point is that we had financial incentive to work with them, no will to embroil ourselves in a pointless liberation exercise that would cost human lives for preferential oil prices. My moral value statement is a personal opinion, I understand that there are diplomatic issues, but the facts are that we really didn't give two shits about their human rights record, we just wanted a pipeline. There was some petty aid with them to improve their human rights record, but you can track support for that back to lobbying from specific groups that donated to Clinton.

>>166348

It's not merely "mud slinging", it's a list of facts backed up with sources. Where is the conservative response?

>>166348

Conservatives can't respond to the list, because it isn't possible to. All conservatives can say is:

>The Democrats are just as bad if not worse...

Without providing any equivalent evidence to back it up.

Most republicans are puppets on strings, most "liberals" hijiacked the term from true progressives to try and make those who are liberals actually believe they are on their side as well, just like the main market adopted the emo look to try to appeal to the emos, it just doesnt work.

being a republican doesnt mean you are a conservative, and all members of congress and the president himself are all puppets on strings so they play the Democrat vs Republican and Liberal vs Conservative game just long enough until they strip you of all your rights then the powers that be will step out and take over all control of everything we know.

>>166332
Jesus Christ, Republicans raised the debt ceiling repeatedly, they didn't make an issue out of it until they were out of power. They even participated in raising the debt ceiling along with democrats multiple times before they decided that they needed to wear again the fiscal responsibility mask as their last popularly supported campaign plank. There was nothing in the world they could do to win, so their best chance was to do everything in their power to make sure that Obama lost with them. Democrats were not playing chicken because only Republicans were filibustering. There is literally nothing on this earth that can justify how Republicans acted when they selectively decided to risk technical default.

you keep saying that S&P downgraded us because we had no plan. That is one reason, in addition to playing chicken with default. And again, the two are not mutually exclusive. Not least of which is because default is not an option. In no case should either side have legitimately argued we should default, and neither side seriously did (well, except Bachmann) which means the ONLY reason for delaying the vote was for crass political reasons.

>>166380

>being a republican doesnt mean you are a conservative...

I suggest you actually read the letter.

>>166239

eh I think you are approaching things with the benefit of hindsight...

I get that the intelligence community is always going to claim that they rely upon the Executive for direction, but I think that's a bit of a cop out.

>>166380

It looks like I'll have to paste the letter's introduction here, as no one defending conservatives appears to have read it:

>Dear Conservative Americans,

>The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

>First, the invitation: Come back to us.

>Now the advice. You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from yours; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

>Your party — the GOP — and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it’s tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples – by no means an exhaustive list — of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

>If you’re going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you’ll have to start by draining this swamp:

>>166362

Except it isn't a list of facts backed up by sources. It's a list of accusations, backed up usually by a single article supporting that conclusion. If you want to insult republicans, why not bring up an issue here and own then now in front of everyone?

I remember some dissenting voices during the Clinton admin claiming that he was forcing a lot of older and experienced voices in the intelligence and military structure into retirement to make way for the younger and more politically pliable, and that one day this would backfire when Al Qaeda didn't fuck up and all the yes men in the world won't help you catch bad guys. I remember hearing things like this over and over again, which is why I believe that there's more to how Clinton handled his entire presidency than surface policy.

>>166239

oh and Berger and Clarke aren't all that trustworthy imo
Berger for his previously mentioned paper theft and Clarke with his bs about the War in Iraq

Both have demonstrated they are willing to lie to keep up appearances so to speak

>>166401

er... there is no recession.

Obama pulled the economy out of recession over two years ago. He also started the ball rolling on health care reform, something Clinton tried and failed to do.

>>166387
But the intelligence community wasn't relying on him for direction. They were sending daily reports on al-Qa'ida related threats. People like Cofer Black and George Tenet and Richard Clarke were saying the US would be attacked within months, in July 2001. This wasn't the sort of stuff that should have been ignored or pushed to the side, but it was. I'm not placing the entire blame on Bush. I think Rice came in with an agenda that didn't involve South Asia, so she ignored it. A lot of threats were probably filtered, and that's the cabinet's fault. I think Bush failing to recognize the threat passed with the utmost urgency to him and his cabinet in January 2001, however, was a major problem that can't be overlooked.

>>166412
I do actually remember when Republicans, as part of the congressional record, were trying to change the definition of rape under US code. And it was the first time I started recognizing that there were people in my own party that actually fit the "strawman" stereotype I accused Democrats of using.

>>166412

If you dispute a single fact presented by Russ King, go take it up with him. He responds, in person, to every request made for further information.

All of his sources are verifiable.

>>166401

WE ARE NOT IN RECESSION.

Stop watching Fox News you stupid cunt.

>>166423
It's pretty much accepted that everything Bush knew was filtered by his cabinet or his VP. Shit, he didn't go to primary sources for anything. On the opposite side, Cheney was asking for raw intelligence, as if he could even process it with the competency of a junior intelligence clerk.

>durrr america created bin laden
rofl fucking liberals
just keep repeating the lie over and over again and it will become the truth

protip: just because the USA supplied various mujahedeens doesn't mean the USA supplied Osama
Osama was already extremely rich back then and didn't need any US funding anyways

Yes, USA did supply mujahedeens, and a lot of them ended up being members of the northern alliance - the anti-taliban movement in afghanistan (isnt it hilarious how liberals cry about conservatives lumping all the muslims into terrorists yet they do the same when it makes them look better)

>>166415
I was in high school in 2004, can you explain what you mean by Clarke's iraq bs?

>>166412

These are not insults:

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

This is what conservatives do. It is how they behave. All the points made in the letter are backed up. Find one that is wrong.

>>166423

if the IC weren't relying on him for direction, then what is the argument? Telling cabinet there is a credible unspecific threat does what exactly? It keeps them in the loop, it doesn't stop planes from hitting buildings.

The CIA and FBI (and the rest of the IC) dropped the ball, you could perhaps (and this is a big perhaps) argue that this is due to the Bush admin not asking them to focus on the terrorism issue, but imo thats a huge cop out. This implies that when faced with a credible threat, the CIA will half arse it to placate their political masters, thats a fucking TERRIBLE situation.

Frankly, I don't even blame the FBI or CIA (and other Int Orgs), shit happens, they couldn't connect the dots and turn it into intelligence they could work with. That's fine, they (the CIA especially) have a long history of doing just that.

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

>Dear Conservative Americans,

>The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

>First, the invitation: Come back to us.

>Now the advice. You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors,

Stopped reading there.

>>166401

Bush put us into a recession, Obama pulled us out. Over two years ago...

...just sayin'.

>>166354
I only remember it from when it was happening. But basically Berger was going into the national archives to research for a book (allegedly anyway) and he got caught with some documents stuffed in his socks that he ripped out of some binders. Note that that is the first time he got CAUGHT doing it during the months he was going back and forth. He gave a pitiful excuse that he was taking them so he could photocopy them and bring them back, as if the archives didn't have a copy machine.

>>166461

Why did you stop reading?

Russ backs up his point, with sources.

Problem?

>>166434

Except that I'm not arguing with him or even intend to argue with everyone I find on the internet that's wrong. Right now I'm arguing with you.

You seem to treat the list is some indisputable proof if republican hypocrisy, despite the fact that you most likely never really read it nor have any real comprehensive understanding of most of the issues he's referring to. It's just a trophy that you barely understand and parading around with. If you think republicans are hypocrites, why not bring up a big issues where they are hypocrites and show us?

Note: your hero was using blogs to prove his point.

hhmmm... conservative still think we're in recession? This is what they actually believe.

Chuckle.

>>166454
yes, everything you've just said is correct. i'm probably placing too much emphasis on what could have been done with more focused leadership at the top. I suppose there would have been tacit support for Massoud and the anti-Taliban Pashtuns, and maybe eventually an all-out proxy war to defeat the Taliban. This could have led to bin Laden being killed. But it wouldn't have dismantled the organization (rather, the movement), and it was at that time too late to have stopped 9/11. In that sense Clinton is certainly more to blame. It was mostly a failure of the system though.

>>166472

>You seem to treat the list is some indisputable proof if republican hypocrisy...

Well, every point made by Russ is backed up with sources. That is proof that his points are valid.

If you can prove otherwize on single point, please inform Russ. He will discuss it with you, personally.

>>166454
this is my opinion as well, there is intelligence flying all over the place, it's extremely difficult to filter out the bullshit and again to assemble the credible pieces into an actual plan that's coming to fruition. Clinton was getting specific intel on Al Qaeda movements and the location of bin Laden in Afghanistan, I don't know for sure but I don't think anybody made the case for a credible imminent specific attack that made it all the way to the White House.

>>166472

>Note: your hero was using blogs to prove his point.

Does this make his points invalid? No, I didn't think so.

Russ has also appeared on TV, many times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXuSvndFbY

>>166490
I don't think either one of you are terribly out of sync with each other, we couldn't put all the pieces together because there was nobody in government that could have created the unified intelligence body we have now. I kind of hate DHS, but I grudgingly accept that it's necessary.

>>166492
>>Except that I'm not arguing with him or even intend to argue with everyone I find on the internet that's wrong. Right now I'm arguing with you.

Thanks for proving me right that you have no understanding of what's in his list and are carrying it around as a trophy. And no, blogs are not valid proofs nor are sites like thinkprogress. Running around and spamming people with links to articles with views that you like is not a valid way of arguing.

>>166496
there are also a ton of reasons Clinton didn't get him, most of them for diplomatic reasons and because of the political difficulty of such actions during the impeachment process.

>>166496

and frankly if there was specific knowledge of an imminent attack, i find it very difficult to believe that they would need presidential approval to act upon it...

(talking this specific example since it occured within US jurisdiction)

I felt like almost every point on that blog entry was well documented. I don't know how much more you want. In most cases they were self-explanatory facts of record.

>>166511
The reason I don't believe this is because he was willing to do NATO flyover bombings on Serbia as a great way to distract people from his inability to keep it in his pants.

Do you guys know how much I am enjoying talking to people that know what the fuck they are talking about, even if we don't agree on it?

>>166384

was a diferent person making a comment, didnt actually read most the posts when i came in, so just caught this when posted.

Frankly, from a true conservative to a true liberal, i may not entirely agree with everything said on somethings, but for the most part you are right.

My main difference is the mandated census. While it may be allowed, the census was originally designed to just count people, the ones as of late are a bit TOO personal for my belief, and you can get a number from my household on the people there, but i dont wish to tell you how much income im making, nor do i wish to tell you how many bathrooms are in my house. These mean almost nothing to a well to do society. I could see how incomes and such could try and list tax brackets and such, but I dont believe its wise to make informed decisions just based on how much someone is making at the time of a census that happens every 10 years. Too much can fluctuate in the timespan, and cause for woes in family that were well to do at once, but no longer in a situation where they can make ends meet. Plus I'm already furious at how much power the government has to spy on me anyways. I firmly believe in a right to privacy.

Other than that, I think a good cleaning of not just the republicans who've taken over the term conservative, but the democrats that raped the name liberal. Unfortunatly the nation is too corrupt at this time for anything to be done about it. Even voting the cancer out wouldnt change the fact that congress has found out it can vote itself into money, which the founding fathers stated it was then time to rebuild the government from the ground up.

>>166509

Russ Kings blog is clear and easy to understand by the average person. He backs up all his statements, with sources. What is your point when you claim, I might not understand "the issues", he is discussing.

I think I understand when right wing nut jobs call Supreme Court judges "goat fucking child molesters"...

Stay classy Erick Erickson

>>166547
You aren't actually obligated to provide information other than the constitutionally mandated items, such as number of household members and a few other things.

>>166556
>>He backs up all his statements, with sources.

Which has little meaning. Everyone can make statements and back up their statements with sources. I can make an empty one line statement and link it up with an article from some unknown site/blog that agrees with me but that doesn't somehow turn it into some indisputable truth.

>>166547

>but the democrats that raped the name liberal...

YOU HAVEN'T READ THE LETTER.

The whole point is there is NOT equivalence on the liberal side of the debate. The Republican party has become dominated by a lunatic fringe. All of the points made in the letter demonstrate this fact.

Conservatives are unable to come up with a equivalent list of liberal madness, because they can't. It isn't possible.

I'm not saying liberals are "all good" and have done no wrong. What I'm saying is, they are not as bad as conservatives, and I have the evidence to support it.

>>166583
Liberals have been ran by the frindge lunatics since the 1968 generation grew up and took over.

>>166577

All his statements are sourced. If you can find one point made by Russ that is wrong, or erroneous, or the source cannot be verified, let Russ know. He will respond in person.

>>166592

Evidence?

>>166598
Modern progressive views on pretty much any economic or social issue.

>>166556
Isn't he just some dude that runs a website? I would be more concerned if say, a congressman said that. there are actually a few judges I would say something equally harsh about (POSNER), but none on the Supreme Court.

>>166605

So, you claim "progressive views on pretty much any economic or social issue" is evidence of lunacy.

Would you say the Republican progressive top tax rate of 94% in the 1950s was evidence of lunacy. America in the 1950s was said to be in its "golden age", by most conservatives.

Problem?

>>166623
American "golden age" was golden because the rest of the civilized world was in ruined and pretty much everyone had to buy America's shit.

That doesn't work in the modern, globalized world. It's like saying we should go back to feudalism because the Franks had it and they ruled pretty much the entire Europe.

Stop spamming /pol/, Mr. Kings.

>>166644

the rest of the world didn't have any money to buy American "shit".

Britain was still rationing in the 1950s.

>>166644

European countries were using America taxpayers' money to rebuild their economies. They could not afford to buy American products.

>>166664
>>166695
>They couldn't afford to buy shit.
Which is why they took loans. From the United States.

>>166717

The loans were to rebuild national economies, farming, transport, heavy industry, capital goods. Not US consumer products.

The 1950s boom in America was achieved by internal demand along with massive Government investment in infrastructure, road building, damns. Military spending and funding of agencies to develop technology, like DARPA.

Fortunately, back in the 1950s the right wing were concerned with nation building and facing down Communism. They didn't pretend the "free market" would fix everything.

>>166717

America did not get the money they lent to Europe back.

>The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Repayment

out of recesion?

why is the dollar weaker than its ever been? why are we forcing near flat intrest rates? why is unemployement at 9.1 %? why are there protests in every major city about economic innequality? why are we still pushing an "emergency jobs bill?"

answer those and ill start working on a list of democratic failures starting in tbe current administration and working backwards.

>>166852

There is NO recession in the US. The economy came out of recession two years ago.

You have a problem with facts?

Pic related.

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/12266

^^^^^ above Noam Chomsky criticizes the assassination of an american citizen via drone strike for using their first amendment rights. everytime obama gives the order to assassinate another suspected "terrorist" the same democrats and liberals crying "war crime" cheer him on.

liberal left, why are you only antiwar when there is a repbulican in office? do you realise obama has almost doubled the pentagons budget by expanding operations to pakistan, libya, yemen, somalia, and uganda? we have now the most bloodthirsty commandet in cheif yey you are focused on taxing the rich... why so your messiah can build morr drones and enlist more soldiers?

>>166918
omg a graph!!!

i travel a lot... i see the homeless in bigger numbers than ever. i see more buisinesses closed than ever, i see entire nieghborhoods blocked vacant or or for sale... i hear everyday mortgages being denied, i see people go to their 30th job interview and walking home still unemployed...

but that graph proves all reality wrong....

>>166980

Republicans start a war on "terror". When a Democrat continues the war Republicans criticize him. Stay classy.

Obama never said he would end the war on terror. He got Bin Laden. Obama has pulled the troops out of Iraq. He is preparing to get out of Afghanistan. He has extended the war on terror to other areas as the conflict has spread.

I wouldn't call Obama "the most blood thirsty". Another liberal, Truman, dropped the atomic bomb on Japan... twice.

>>167006

It is apparent you do not know what a recession is. America's economy is growing. It has been growing since 2009.

Obviously, your anecdotal experience shows you are in a deprived area. Where you from, Detroit?

Hi guys! I'm just going to leave this here. Sorry to interrupt!

>>167060

Nice post.

>>167006


yeah, noam chomsky a republican.:-/

how man republican votes does it take to bring the troops home?

how many republican votes to keep gitmo open?

how republican many votes to resign the patriot act?

how many republican votes to ignore congress to wipe libya off the map?

>>165344
just look at the bill list in congress. more filibusters and stop votes than the rest of the years of the US's existance combined, calling for MORE GUNS after the giffords shooting, calling for the illegal murder of bradley manning and julian assange, giving Michelle Bachmann a microphone, bitching about raising taxes on the rich and calling that class warfare and in the same breath calling for a 50% tax increase on those who make under 106k per year.....

Basicly, being the party of "no" and then blaming obama for them saying no.

>>167069

Obama never said he'd end the war on terror. The troops have been pulled out of Iraq. Republicans never wanted to close gitmo.

Libya operation were largely conducted by Francce and the UK

>>167069
>how man republican votes does it take to bring the troops home?
>
Zero. they don't need to come home, their job is shooting freedom-bullets into scary brown people to give them democracy.

>>167091

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286

a list of failed campaign promises...

promised to have troops home in 16 months... or to impeach him... lets impeach him!

doesnt matter who led in libya he still ignored congress.

>>167129

A list of conservative lies, hyperbole and hypocrisy:

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

I think you'll find their is no equivalent list documenting liberal wrong doing.

If there is. let me know.

>>166918
>>166438
>>166464
>>166482
>>166418

Except we're still in a recession, we never left it persisted.

>>167129
world nut daily?
Why not just source the enquirer, rushbo, or read tea leaves for your facts?

>>167129
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286

This list good enough for you? We can find more.

>>167167

Stop watching Fox News. The US is not in recession.

The economy came out of recession in 2009 after the Obama stimulus.

Just stating the facts here.

>>167208

Not really, it is NOT equivalent of this list documenting conservative lies and hypocrisy:

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/

>>167219
I'm no neocon but even I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuck that was.

We have high unemployment, low wages, low hours, and rampant unequality, plus wars in the streets of our cities that parallel the bonus army battles of the first great depression. If this isn't a recession, I'd hate to see what you would call one.

>>167226
Okay, look, as much as I agree with you this link has been posted a dozen times in this thread alone.

And Obama has broken a number of his promises. Regardless of source or your affiliation, that can't be denied.

The sad fact is that 99% of politicians are corruptible. Our aim should be to give the worse ones the boot and let the others know our tolerance is wearing extremely thin for their bullshit.

>>167233

There is no equivalent list because liberals are not as bad as conservatives.

>>166348
>mudslinging
>sources nobody would or even could refute
pick on and leave.

>>167239

A recession would feel a lot worse. our economy is actually growing.