or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sammi jo

 And when that government - aka your "single source" is fully merged with, and controlled by big business and their army of corporate lobbyists - the "liberal" label starts to look kind of inappropriate. And considering that the Obama policy set, taken as a whole, is to the right of both Nixon and Reagan, perhaps the term "liberal" has been re-defined.
 Obama is a failure. However, it is impossible to gauge how presidents perform in the area of economics... it's a complex dynamical system and there are way too many variables and unknowns to be able to slap the blame and point the finger. For example, many people have credited the Clinton presidency as being responsible for the economic boom years of the 1990s - but it has been claimed that the (relative) economic successes of the 1990s were as a result of the policies...
 Perhaps one should go back to the originators of ObamaCare™ to launch criticisms - it was written up largely by lawyers from the Heritage Foundation, not exactly famous for liberal views (!). Heritage was also instrumental in creating RomneyCare in MA. The latter, btw, has worked fairly well, as noted by some, on account of it being a state, as opposed to federal, mandate. I wonder why Obama decided to go for a rightwing organization to put his "health care" program...
 How about the US arming both sides, as has been done many times in the past? This would allow our al Qaeda allies and Assad's military to kill each other off at a faster rate, and the corporate welfare queens in the defense (sic) sector could turn even larger profits on the taxpayer. 
 There are internationally recognized protocols, procedures and laws to deal with nations that violate the Chemical Weapons Convention. The full scale invasion of an offending nation is not included in those protocols. I get the impression that Obama is somewhat of an ego-maniac - and to rescue his flailing excuse of an administration, he is resorting to war, the catch-all solution that has a direct appeal to patriotism, to distract the public from the failures of his...
 Kerry has done nothing of the kind, and the most likely reality is a different scenario to what is being blared out by the administration and its media lackeys. Most accounts recall chemical weapons being used by, and captured from, the al Qaeda linked rebel militias (Islamists), and not Assad's military. Putin's analysis seems to make the most sense -  he claims that Assad has everything to lose from using chemical weapons while having the upper hand militarily - an...
 There's a lot of material which suggests the Reagan Administration helped Iraq acquire chemical weapons - made pretty clear in this article here:  The Reagan Administration did everything to insure Iraq acquired chemical weapons, barring the direct export of complete weapons. (Although, there's no evidence available to suggest that that did not happen either - anything can happen when protected by classification).  By claiming multiple/alternate/legitimate use re. the...
  That's a pretty well rounded summary IMHO. I am skeptical however, that Assad would use chemical weapons, knowing that it would be the trigger for  Western (read US) military action against his regime. Assad is one of those guys who *enjoys* power - and I cannot acknowledge that he's oblivious to reality, and stupid enough to play directly into the hands of those who want regime change in Syria.   Secretary of State John Kerry recently has compared Assad to Hitler (!)....
CNN is at it again.... just like the rest of them, being led by the nose by those in the corporate media who want war.   War is excellent for ratings, and advertisers. Lets have some. War is good for the media's parent companies which profit handsomely from conflict. Lets have some!   Left or right, dem or repub - they're all owned and lick military a$$.
New Posts  All Forums: