MoveOn.org

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
I changed sides now to fit in better here and not be blasted on a regular basis for being a "neocon", even though that isn't true. My first step was to go to what might be the zenith of websites with unbiased information - MoveOn.org. So I thought I would share some info. Glad I made the change.

"Two years ago President Bush and the White House declared they?d fire any White House staffer who leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame-Wilson. We now know for certain that Karl Rove was one of the staff members who leaked her identity. Now the White House is flip-flopping?refusing to hold Rove accountable... the White House is breaking its word by not firing Karl Rove."

Just like Bush to go back on his promise and how can the Repubs flip-flop when that is what they accused Kerry of doing? Also, seems very suspicious that Karl Roves first name starts with a "K", not a "C". Does the KKK have some influence over him? Who can be sure?
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
More skullduggery from Bush and friends courtesy of MoveOn.

"In nominating John Roberts, the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people. Working for mining companies, Roberts opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion."

I suspect he has close ties to Haliburton, too!
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
More news, this time from the venerable L.A. Times. It seems as though that weasel "W" and his cohorts in Washington and other places uniknown, is trying to sneak yet another typical neocon into a position of importance. According to author Jamie Court, Bush is trying to sweep Repub. Chris Cox (of notoriously right wing Newport Beach, Ca) into place as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Hearings on Cox's confirmation are next week and I suspect that the Dems will howl holy hell. Here is a little background on this scumbucket "W" wants to run the SEC. First of all, we all know that it is the GOP that created the conditions which allowed corporate criminals to flourish. That goes without saying.

According to author Court, Cox is a "right wing Republican" (aren't they all) who wrote a law in 1995 which made it harder for us poor, downtrodden investors to sue the corporate criminals eating at the very trough of public investment. Despite the fact that Bill Clinton, surely to go down in history as one of the best presidens, vetoed this horrendous bill, the evil doers somehow made it law (I wonder what sort of pay offs were involved there?). So, shortly thereafter we have Enron, WorldCom, Ken Lay, William Cooper, et al. Cox had all sort of inside information on theses scandels to be, but investors still took it in the shorts. Cooper and his ponzi pension plan cost some OC investors more than $130 million. Cox certainly needs to answer some serious questions about his role in this chicanery. How can we have a swindler as our nation's top investor cop? Watch closely and see how the Dems demolish Cox's confirmation hearing this week. I am sure that the Republicans expect the Dems to cave in to some quid pro quo proposal from the stealthy Repubs, but people close to the situation like California's two fine senators, Boxer and Feinstein, will no doubt derail this effort to hoodwink the public once more.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
More news from the L.A. Times. I guess the truth is finally coming out for all to see. According to the Times, Iraqi civilians are being shot and killed on almost a daily basis. How can we say that on one hand we are bringing democracy to Iraq and on the other hand slaughtering innocent citizens? Since when does war involve killing innocent civilians? Obviously, this is just another tactic the neocons favor with none other than GW Bush at the helm. Truman had good reason to drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, a few innocent people succombed, but you cannot compare that with the atrocities in Iraq. Here is the latest example of what happened and the over-reaction of U.S. troops.
According to Time's writerRichard C. Paddock, an unmarked car pulled up to the major crime unit headquarters in Baghdad. Two Arabs wearing the traditional dishdasha gowns,stepped from the unmarked sedan. According to Paddock, a U.S. military envoy came upon the scene and thought that a kidnapping was taking place. The Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding another. The soldiers just kept driving. It was later learned that the passengers were "Unarmed hitchikers ....being dropped off on the way to work." Even though the drop off point was not where the passengers worked, it was just another result of over reaction by the U.S. military.

According to Paddock, the citizens being gunned down are increasingly "doctors, journalists, professors", the kind of people the Americans are counting on to build the democracy. Paddock also reported that this practice is "fueling a growing dislike of the United States".
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Dam the L A Times. Now your scaring me. There as bad as Wash Post. I believe your just LOL!
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
ferdville said:
More news, this time from the venerable L.A. Times. It seems as though that weasel "W" and his cohorts in Washington and other places uniknown, is trying to sneak yet another typical neocon into a position of importance. According to author Jamie Court, Bush is trying to sweep Repub. Chris Cox (of notoriously right wing Newport Beach, Ca) into place as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Hearings on Cox's confirmation are next week and I suspect that the Dems will howl holy hell. Here is a little background on this scumbucket "W" wants to run the SEC. First of all, we all know that it is the GOP that created the conditions which allowed corporate criminals to flourish. That goes without saying.

According to author Court, Cox is a "right wing Republican" (aren't they all) who wrote a law in 1995 which made it harder for us poor, downtrodden investors to sue the corporate criminals eating at the very trough of public investment. Despite the fact that Bill Clinton, surely to go down in history as one of the best presidens, vetoed this horrendous bill, the evil doers somehow made it law (I wonder what sort of pay offs were involved there?). So, shortly thereafter we have Enron, WorldCom, Ken Lay, William Cooper, et al. Cox had all sort of inside information on theses scandels to be, but investors still took it in the shorts. Cooper and his ponzi pension plan cost some OC investors more than $130 million. Cox certainly needs to answer some serious questions about his role in this chicanery. How can we have a swindler as our nation's top investor cop? Watch closely and see how the Dems demolish Cox's confirmation hearing this week. I am sure that the Republicans expect the Dems to cave in to some quid pro quo proposal from the stealthy Repubs, but people close to the situation like California's two fine senators, Boxer and Feinstein, will no doubt derail this effort to hoodwink the public once more.

I sincerely agree with everything in this post.

Welcome aboard, Ferdville. We have a lot of centrists on this board, but it will be refreshing to hear a viewpoint from the left.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
The funny thing is that this is basically accurate stuff, even considering the L.A.imes. It goes to show that we are slaves to our news sources if we don't make an effort to see both sides. I am going to continue this crusade for a while and would urge others to do same depending on atitude.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
Had to add one more for today. As most of you would expect, California prisons have been declared "Tobacco Free Zones." That is right, no smoking in California prisons. Well, except for one group that should make the PC crowd happy. That's right, Indians will be allowed a special space for smoking (peace pipes?). Hey, I don't make this stuff up.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Im not sure if your posting this as a tongue in cheek piece, but if you serious then you have made the right move to go Independent. As with all facets of life there are good and bad on both sides (Dems and Reps) and being Indy allows you to see both sides instead of being myopic. I would not be surprised if by 2008 the Independent voter bloc swells due to the ineptness of the Bush Administration and the inability of the Dem's to find a voice.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Ferdville is my hero. :mj14:

...that reminds me, I haven't been watching much Fox lately. ....Come to think of it, not watching ANYTHING lately.

The righties are dropping like flies. ...By the waty, where is Englishman???
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
"The righties are dropping like flies"
Busy this morning but will find you chart of seats lost by dems in last decade--including their majority leader--

and apparently you have not read of split in oraganized labor over backing of Democratic party--thats LOTS of flies

You think Hiliary isn't aware of this--with her clandestine move to the middle--one year before election you will swear she's a conservative. ;)
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
She is not stupid. You can see the rights attack dogs starting already and the election is 3 years away. However it is something the attention the right gives her. You might even call it fear. At least they act that way.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
smurphy said:
The righties are dropping like flies. ...By the waty, where is Englishman???

It's almost worklike trying to constantly respond to Monday morning quarterbacks with a glorious memory of the last Democratic administration.

This forum can be a bit taxing on one's mind, what with all the constant whining, crying, bitching and player hating that goes on here non-stop.

You cats seem to be happy when 'left' to your own devises. As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. :)

That's coming from a centrist, like everyone else in this forum now days. :mj07:
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
yeah really. it feels like that line from shawshank redemption - "i'm a centrist. don't you never everyone is a centrist in here?"

dtb - i was talking about this forum, not congress over the last decade. ...it all starts at the grass roots, baby!

basically, bush was not doing well before 9-11. he was likely on a path of being one and done. 9-11 put the whole country in a drunken stooper. and like a cheap drunk date we were doing whatever the man told us to. i think the hangover is kicking in now. i wish it kicked in last november.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
grass roots ???---You see which way Hilliary is "trying" to move which should give you a clue--La Times fires their liberal head--NPR cans Moyer goto conservative mode--Unions split to get away from Political Motives--Air America about history-NYT Times circulation at new lows--Move on.org contributions WAY down--

YEP there is more than just a grass roots movement alright.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Uhh, hate to tell you but I've always heard Bill Clinton described as a Centrist, so I don't find it surprising that Hillary is similarly inclined. How else do you think Bill got elected? It sure isn't from being one of those "unelectable" poor "liberals".

But if you contend Bill was some wild-eyed liberal, how is it he beat snot out of George Sr? Could only be because George had shit SO screwed up that America would elect ANYONE to replace him?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top