Comments on: Udall Calls Out Rush; Now It’s Time to Move On

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:06:15 +0000

Hmmm…I’d feel a lot better if Rep. Udall would ever VOTE to end funding for the war. He has bought the Republican frame “we can’t halt funding without harming the troops.”

Know where that logic takes us? Endless war.

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:28:23 +0000

Jim as usual politics/journalism/media
creates a false dilemma.
Both Rush and the American GI
have a right to their opinion. That’s
What we’re fighing for in Iraq and
Afganistan, the front on the war against
the Islamic autocratic belief system
which wants to eliminate freedom, free
will, individuality and of course free
dom of expression on the planet. I
think that jackass Udall needs to go
read the Bill of Rights, starting with
the first.

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:46:49 +0000

Hey Rich, we ARE in an endless war!
Would rather fight it here amongst our
little kids? Or have you already tucked
the images of 9/11 away in your psyche?

Do you really believe the global war
on Islamic fanaticism ENDS with a troop
withdrawl?? I dare say THAT will be
the beginning of the war. Get ready
you’ll be an active participant!

By: clj

clj — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:29:46 +0000

hammond; I didn’t see you jumping up and defending the rights of MoveOn. You and your ilk defend the rights of onlt those who agree with you.

By: LHKMAN

LHKMAN — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:57:58 +0000

The political silly season has begun earlier than usual. Congress apparently hasn’t the stomach to really legislate on matters of importance to the country, so it bloviates on Moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh. One could make the argument that they deserve each other. Meanwhile, the nation grinds to a halt with infrastructure falling apart and not being built; health care continues to be screwed up, and even moreso now that The Prez has vetoed the SCHIP bill. The list goes on. It’s always easier for pols to bloviate and fulminate than it is to do the people’s business. Bah, humbug.

By: durf786

durf786 — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:39:35 +0000

Perhaps Mr. Bush, among his other accomplishments, started the recent assault on free speech when he said, “If you aren’t with us, you’re against us,” and then applied that statement to anyone who didn’t agree with him. It is sad that the Congress, and Jim, I guess, buy into the idea that we must protest when someone says something we don’t agree with. It should be enough to learn from what is said.

An issue perhaps more important regards the emphasis that we now place on “the troops”. All sides say that we have to do THIS or we have to do THAT because of the troops. We can’t cut war funding because of the troops. We can’t criticize the war because it would demoralize the troops. “The troops” are America’s heart and soul.

That’s not right.

First, the troops aren’t automatically heroes. They’re soldiers. Some of them might turn out to be heroes, just as Jim might become a hero tomorrow by jumping in a lake to save a little old lady. But most of them are just soldiers. None of them is protecting the U.S. in Iraq. Some might have patriotic motives, but a lot of them are there because they couldn’t get a better opportunity. Some are great guys, some are jerks. I am grateful that they are willing to fight when the U.S. calls, regardless of their motives. I feel deeply sorry when they are killed or injured. But they are soldiers, just that.

When Congress-folk say they can or cannot do this or that because of “the troops”, it is a lie. They are afraid to act responsibly because of Americans’ emotional attachment to people who are risking their lives at the behest of their country. Politicians are afraid of losing votes. But withholding money to fund the war does not directly affect the troops, it affects policy. It is the job of Congress to affect policy; and where policy goes, the troops will follow. That’s their job.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:13:36 +0000

Dennis, always the right wing apologist! I’d like to say we put soldiers on a pedestal JUST a little too much, simply because they’re doing something we’d never would do. So do a lot of other jobs, but no ones getting upset if I use the term “phoney garbagemen?”

Jim is wrong about one thing, “Limbaughâ€™s disrespect for the military is every bit as bad as MoveOnâ€™s.” Go review everything MoveOn.org has ever said about soldiers, and see if you find any negatives, then compare what Limbaugh has said. Just in the past few days, Limbaugh has repeated it, and called decorated Congressman Murtha a “phony soldier.” Called Senator Reid name to just to bait the Dems. This is no comparison. MoveOn.org crossed the line in their ad, but attacking the messenger rather than the message. That was wrong, and members like myself called them out on it.

The Repubs and cons are the masters at pointing fingers when some Dem or liberal stumbles words or means something else; yet they can’t find enough smoke and mirrors to cover their party’s affiliates fall from grace. Don’t make me list them; it makes me gag.

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:58:11 +0000

clj that’s not true, I’d stand up for your
right to freedom of speech any time.

I think you have it backwards, it’s Liberals
who embrace the Constitution and Bill of
Rights when it suits them. The Bill of
Rights has never been more under seige than
during the Clinton era, Sueing private,
lawful companies, like tobacco and firearms
using the “collective good” to userp rights
such as property and privacy rights for
environmental reasons yada yada. Muzzling
freedom of speech for P.C. reasons was
rampant. I belive the term hate speech
was coined and legislation enacted in the
90’s all part of the so called “culture
war which addressed the “needs” of gays
and minorities at the expense of every one
else’s rights

But then During our security beef up for
Homeland security (a serious matter)
Liberals suddenly embraced the
4th Amendment, the property/privacy amend-
ment. Hypocricy has always and will always
be the legacy and foundation of the Left
because it’s ideology is based on special
interest agendas a downright lies Not the
Constitution or Bill of rights which was
written by a bunch of evil, opportunistic
exploitive white dudes.

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:06:59 +0000

Keith, I do appologize for the right because
I think their ideology is better, they
aren’t particularly better, a politician is
a politician and we’re WAY DOWN on their
list of priorities number one which is
getting REELECTED so they can plant their
well fed rear end back in Congress (when
they show up) All the more reason for
Amending the Constituion to allow for and
IMPOSE Congressional term limits. Some of
those SOB’s have been in there since the
VIETNAM WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Conyers, Lott
I say get the hell out I don’t care what
your party affiliation, our founding fathers
never intended for people to make a career
out of being a Congressman. All they do
is owe favors, vote for special interests,
sell their office and screw things up.

By: noidea

noidea — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:58:25 +0000

LHKMAN,

Well said. I probably don’t agree with you with respect to political solutions and ideology, but I must commend you that you always bring rational thought to the table. I am sick of all the crap and if either side thinks that one is worse than the other they need to get over themselves. You are right, they deserve each other. We need to throw them all out and get some grown ups representing us, whatever their ideology.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:01:19 +0000

Dennis, is not the apologist for the Repubs, claiming liberals are the ones who selectively use the constitution for their agenda, citing some obscure right of the tobacco companies to sell a non-essential, non-food product, that has been proven and accepted to cause cancer and death. If it were a food product, it would of been banned, but right wing capitalists supported by their crony Republicans, fight to keep the profit ideal alive.

Dennis fails to mention the history of Republicans and conservatives who set aside the constitution, even now in illegal wire tapping, refusing habeous corpus rights, and lets not forget gay rights (Dennis like a good conservative will point out the constitution doesn’t address gay rights or sexual orientation). Let’s not forget the Patriot Act, that took away more CONSTITUTION rights. . (Repubs love to dress up these pigs and put lipstick on them with patriotic and compassionate sounding names to make them sound good). Like No Child Left Behind.

But only conservatives and gun nuts could come up with some 230+ year old reference to “an armed militia” to claim they all have a right to possess a fully automatic assault rifle, and bazooka.

Who is it that is constantly gay bashing, putting down poor people and being racist? You know all those CONSTITUTIONAL protections. Must be the liberals according to Dennis!

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:08:59 +0000

Ah yes, the great “conflicted” party. The party that says their against big government, and creates the biggest govt bureacracy in the history of the nation. The party who claims to want to reduce spending, but has run up a near trillion$ bill for YOUR children to pay. Can’t require the current people who got us there to pay, that would mean raised “taxes.” The T-word. The party that wants govn’t out of our personal affairs, but wants them in the bedrooms and stopping of gay anything. Yes, this is the party of conflicted. They make of anyone that has the courage to change their mind, and keep an open mind, and call them “flip floppers,” but they’re the biggest flip floppers around. Long reign Larry Craig!

Now Dennis claims the conservatives want term limits, because hey, that’s got to be the problem. Don’t let re-elections get in the way of people re-endorsing someone, let’s stop experienced and successful congressman, irregardless of part, not continue their appreciated public service; because nay sayers like Dennis, feel their evil. If we imposed this, Repubs would be hit the hardest, and just like the flip floppers they are would demand the law be recinded. Imagine if Gore had won the electoral college, but lost the majority vote. Any bets the EC would of been voted out?

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:02:36 +0000

I partially agree with Dennis, we elect people and they sit on their fat behinds and vote pork barrels, they forget who they work for and what their job is.
Witness this last batch we elected to end the war and bring our soldiers home from that awful mess. Have they done it? No. Will they ever? Highly unlikely. They seem to have ADD, can’t keep their mind on what it was they were supposed to do.
But the trouble with term limits is it actually TAKES AWAY CHOICE, because the incumbent might be better than whoever is running for the office.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:12:56 +0000

Even though we think we’re electing different people to the presidency and vice-presidency every 4 to 8 years, are we really?
Think about it.
Bush will have been in 8 years.
Clinton was in 8 years, that equals 16 years.
Bush Sr. was in 4 years, that equals 20 years.
Bush Sr. was vice-president for 8 years, that equals 28 years.
If Hillary is in for two terms that would equal 36 years.
28 years plus possibly another 8 for Hillary for the Bush/Clinton royal families….
Are we a democracy or a monarchy?
My multi-great grandfather came over from England in the 1600’s for independence from a privileged royalty regime. But have we become one again?

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:21:10 +0000

Keith, there are many Republican’s who
don’t agree with what’s going on in
Washington on either side of the isle.

The Republican party has made a major
shift to embrace actually more liberal
beiefs and policies. The old Republican
party was about small government, low
taxes and minimal interferance in people’s
lives. That’s not possible now because of
campaign finance and special interests.
None of them repressent their constituants
anymore regardless of why their constit-
uants put then in office.

I want a country where the people govern
in view of the Constitution through duly
elected representatives. The primary
obligation of the Federal government is
to defend the constituion and our country
against all threats foreign or domestic.

Now the Federal government tells you what
to EAT! I for one find that disgusting!

If you want to live in a nanny state that’s
up to you, but don’t impose it on us.

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:30:18 +0000

Keith, by the way. I buried my mother
last year, she died of emphysema at the
age of 83 I was with her when she died.
She had a cup of coffee and cigerette
on the day she died. That was her choice.
She smoked her whole life as did my father
They both lived through the Depression and
my father served in WWII his unit liberated
a concentration camp in Germany. My mother
raised five kids and eight grandchildren.
I think they did ok and they still made
their own decision about how to live their
lives and they took RESPONSIBILITY for
themselves. Not a virtue embraced by
your ilk.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:54:48 +0000

Dennis, I am very sorry for the death of your mother. I also lost my mother at age 83 a few years ago, she died of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.She never smoked in her life. My dad died a few years before that with lung and other cancer throughout his body. He also never smoked in his life.I do know the pain you go through when you lose beloved, hard-working parents. My parents were lifelong non-smokers, Baptists and Republicans.
I am none of the above.
I learned much from my parents, besides independence, a lifelong commitment of helping the less fortunate who are UNABLE to help themselves.My dad, a pharmacist with a drug store and other businesses in a small town, would give help that involved a job, not handouts that further enable people.he was the most compassionate person I ever knew. I don’t know what a liberal is, and I think it is time for you to cease name-calling of people.It is very hurtful. Keith is not “ilk” and I don’t even see the world through rose- colored glasses, let alone a purple haze. I would say it is typical right-wing rhetorical response, but I realize that you are suffering emotionally. I am very sorry for anything I said previously that offended you.

By: dennis hammond

dennis hammond — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:50:42 +0000

Wildflower, back at ya, it’s hard to lose
your folks. I really believe that was the
greatest generation. Why do I get mad at
people and sometimes call them names? Because
they’re my countrymen and I care about them.
I do not wish to see my country and it’s
people go down the tubes. I think we owe
it to our parents to give a damn about what
they and everyone before them built for us.
We’ve become a very spoiled lot if you ask
me.