General discussion

Locked

Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Con Job

By Peter Warren ·
For those who believe Bush, Cheney and their neo-con Republican allies honor the men and women who serve in the US armed forces, take the time to visit these web sites:
http://www.saluteheroes.org/redesign/,
http://www.lastwishfoundation.org/, http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php,
http://www.iava.org/index2.html.

Can anyone defend a Republican party that sends young men and women to war, but drags its feet and pinches pennies on benefits for the wounded and for the families of the dead? (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12861), (http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=tp-108-1-405).

It would be one thing if we were broke. But while non-governmental organizations struggle to help veterans; the neo-con Republican administration and Congress are:

? directing billions in sweetheart contracts to their friends at Halliburton, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main5510**.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories,

? allowing big oil to reap unprecedented windfall profits without requiring reinvestment either in oil production capacity or funding of alternative energy research (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/28/news/economy/windfall_tax/), and

? in the ultimate irony, throwing hundreds of billions at the wealthiest among us (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm), without requiring the sacrifice of so much as one thin dime of this tax windfall to help veterans and their families.

Yes, the neo-con Republicans were FINALLY embarrassed into passing some increases in veterans? healthcare benefits, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/29/politics/main712817.shtml). But it?s still not enough! Instead of insisting that ALL of us share the sacrifice, the burden of adequate funding is left to non-governmental organizations, which must continue to fight with the government and ask for contributions in order to raise money.

The same neo-con ?warriors? who send OTHER families? children to war have shown their true priorities. Wildly irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthy come before adequate funding for veterans? benefits. The Republican Party, the so-called party of national security, wraps itself in the flag, while it uses and betrays American soldiers and their families. Now that?s a neo-con job!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

37 total posts (Page 4 of 4)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A crash course in Australian federal politics

by jardinier In reply to I'm curious

Firstly, there is no separate election for Prime Minister. He is simply the leader of the party which wins the greatest number of "seats" (electoral divisions).

The preferential system doesn't just allow two choices -- I just gave that as an example. If there are 10 candidates contesting a particular seat, then they can all be listed in order of the voter's preference.

Campaign money comes from donations to the political parties, mostly from large corporations. More often than not individual corporations will donate to both major parties.

The campaign itself is similar to what you have in America -- flying around the country giving speeches and shaking hands -- especially in the marginal seats.

The big difference is that there are no mega flag-waving rallies such as you have.

People vote primarily for the preferred leader and his declared policies. [Hopefully one day that will be his/her. Ms Julia Gillard is generally regarded as the most competent person to lead the Labor Party, but she is held back because she belongs to the "wrong" faction].

There is no limit to the number of terms a Prime Minister may serve, but a Federal Election has to be called at least every three years, and can be called earlier if the PM thinks it is to his advantage to do so.

Half the senate is voted for at the same time as the election for the lower house, so that each senator serves two consecutive terms.

The electoral system is similar in all the states, except that they have a fixed term of four years. Again there is no limit to the number of terms a Premier (Governor to you) may serve.

I suspect the Australian electoral system is as good as any in the world, presumably due to the fact that we are a young country and the founders who set up the Constitution in 1901 could draw from the experience of other systems.

Here is the Federal Government website where you can learn more detail if you are interested.

http://www.australia.gov.au

Collapse -

Interesting

by AV . In reply to A crash course in Austral ...

So you elect a party as opposed to a Prime Minister. He or she is just the leader of the party. That seems like more of a team approach to government. It sounds like that approach might prevent the "King George" syndrome that we have in the US at the moment.

I could do without all the mega-campaigning we have. Theres too much negative campaigning, mud-slinging, it is just plain awful. Too many lobbyists and too much corporate money decides our elections. The real issues become secondary and the people end up losing out in the end.

We have too much corruption in our government. Is the same true for Australia?

Collapse -

Corruption in the Australian Government?

by jardinier In reply to A crash course in Austral ...

Not to any great degree, and certainly not financially induced.

From time to time an individual politician may be caught out for falsifying his expense account as it were, and using government funds for his private benefit, but this would hardly be considered corruption in the sense that you mean.

But politicians being what they are, and in the game that they play, there are the usual power-plays, backstabbing and so forth but definitely no real corruption.

Like I said, I think we have a very good system. It is also a lot easier to make changes to the Constitution than is the case in America, where I understand it is virtually impossible.

However most referendums are rejected by the people who show more insight in these issues than they do in elections.

Eventually and inevitably Australia will become a republic, but not at all like America. Currently the Queen of England is our head of state and this fact was dramatically illustrated in 1975 when her representative in Australia, The Governor General, sacked the Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

However at least one other Australian member of this website agrees with my own speculation that the CIA was most likely behind this as Whitlam was upsetting the American administration by attempting to make Australia much more independent of the USA.

It is pretty much accepted as fact that the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, who was a drunk anyhow, was almost too inebriated to sign the dismissal order.

Collapse -

Third Party: Good Idea/Wrong Time

by Peter Warren In reply to Where do you find leaders ...

I agree that both major US political parties have their share of incompetents and crooks. However, it?s the neo-con Republicans that now control the government. And it?s the neo-con Republicans that are screwing us and pushing their reckless policies abroad and at home.

The sad reality of America in 2006 is that no third party has a real chance of winning enough seats in Congress to make a difference in the next election. And, there is no third party or independent candidate on the horizon who can win in 08. So we are left with several choices:

? Do nothing and allow the current disgraceful policies to continue and worsen.
? Find independent candidates and minor parties and vote for them whether they have a chance of winning or not.
? Vote for the opposition party that can win in 06 and 08.

Our problems are severe. We do not have the time build a successful third party movement. The best chance any of us have of stopping the Republican neo-con job is voting for the opposition in November. And you don?t have to wait until November. You can start bringing the neo-con artists down right now by encouraging all of your friends and family to stay informed and vote these people out in 06, and again in 08. If we can deny neo-con Republicans the control of even one house of Congress, we can make it much harder for them to continue screwing the country. And that?s a critical first step to moving the US in a new direction.

Collapse -

"opposition party" - I disagree

by Absolutely In reply to Third Party: Good Idea/Wr ...

There are a few minor issues of substantial difference, but both major parties appear pretty comfortable with their excessive status, their view of bribes as an entitlement that comes with public office (free lunches, etc., paid by the companies they "regulate" the worst). Unfortunately, when it comes to corruption, the playing field is quite level, and I haven't seen any improvement in the tone of Washington except when Ross Perot posed a credible threat to the old boys network there. Since there are so few self-made billionaires willing to spend as much on their political campaigns as he did, the impetus will need to come from the voters.

Collapse -

A Quarter?s Worth of Difference

by Peter Warren In reply to "opposition party" - I di ...

Instead of the usual ?less than a dime?s worth of difference? between the major political parties, I think this time it may be as much as ?less than a quarter?s worth of difference.? I think it will be a positive difference, especially in the area of fiscal responsibility (amazingly enough, it?s true), and social freedoms. As you know, in addition to their stupid economic, defense and geo-political policies, the neo-con Republicans are in bed with a homegrown version of the same religious fanaticism we are facing overseas. I think you will appreciate an amazing interview recently aired on Al Jazeera. You can see it at: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null. In brief, it?s an exchange between a modern-thinking Muslim women and an Islamic zealot.

Collapse -

Even more stupid

by Oz_Media In reply to "faulty intelligence" = S ...

It's not like everyone else agreed with the intelligence either.

The UN and other allies said an investigation into the legitimacy of the intelligence was needed to justify invasion.

"Nope, y'all gotta listen to me, I'm an American with lots of dough, of course I am right!"

The source (curveball)was KNOWN, even by the Bush administration, as flaky at best as he had provided false info before.

He (GWB) even knowingly lied about reports from the CIA regarding Saddam's ventures, just to get more support from Americans in fear. His speechriter said he was told to fabricate that soeech.

It was a complete setup, a complete farce and the crappy part, people have and are still being klilled for it.

What a loser, mediocre in college, a farce in the Airforce, a failure in business, even a suspected criminal in business. Remember those comments from his early years, "Don't drink, don't smoke...don't like 'im." ,while at a party?

He's a goof but not only is he a goof, THEY ELECTED HIM TWICE!!!! It makes me wonder who's more stupid, Bush or those who believe his crap and keep voting for him and supporting him.


ON another note though, only SOME of what the links provide can be considered accurate, Just as slanted as the left is, the right is no better, I've seen a lot of complete bullspit from the right wing too.

Back to Community Forum
37 total posts (Page 4 of 4)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04

Related Discussions

Related Forums