Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2004

« Somerville publisher pushes small press legend | Main | Cultivating the Somerville soil »

May 19, 2008

Comments

Jeff

What is interesting is how incredibly successful the Republicans have been at getting ordinary working families to vote against their economic interests.

But as they say, "you get the government you deserve."

Imux

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, where do I even start tearing you a new one? Did you really need to write all that just to say "I hate George W. Bush!!"? I think most of us assumed you weren't on his Christmas party list anyway. Now we know you're not.

I too am disappointed with Bush, but only in regards to his ruinous fiscal policy of borrowing from abroad. As far as Iraq goes -- we have won. I know you moonbats hate to admit it, but the SURGE worked and we have won. Why can't you libs admit it? Why do you all insist on trying to pull defeat from the jaws of victory? In a few years Iraq will be a stable Islamic democracy and an example of what can be achieved with a little stick-to-it-ness. But you libaloons know nothing about sticking to your guns (only small minded folks cling to their guns and religion, right?). Friggin libaloon elitists!!!

As I said before... Bush ain't running in November. Any guy who votes for a liberal squats to pee. Proven fact.

I know who I am voting for. The war hero, married to the chick with the big yabos who owns the big beer distributorship! Think about it. What guy wouldn't? Only a limp wristed, lispy moonbat.

John McCain '08!!!

Bill Shelton

Imux,

I hate myself when you make me laugh so much.

Bill Shelton

Imux,

I hate myself when you make me laugh so much.

Timmy

If we don't go there to fight, we'll be attacked again... and again... on our own soil. It is necessary.

This is the world we live in. Kudos to Bush for ignoring all of those (ridiculous)popularity polls and "sticking to his guns."

For the last 8 years we have been protected and safe. The people(sheep) of this Country should get off "the prez is an idiot", "Bush Sucks" bandwagon. Just say thank you and be done with it.
If one of these two(dems) gets in, we're in a heep of trouble. Believe That!! People should start using their brains; stop watching TV; What a laughing stock we are around the world for being Americans addicted to television(and many other stupid habits).

The rubber is meeting the road folks. And only a few see it. Evil people/ leaders wanting mass annihilation, Education System crumbling;- children out of control countrywide including Somerville; Financial/Economic situation falling apart.

The wake up call was years ago and still the majority sleeps.

Mobius 118

Imux, Timmy, are you f*cking serious? You honestly believe that we went to war with Iraq to stop terrorism?

How deluded you must be, to think that we were actually in Iraq to stop fundamentalist Islam groups from attacking the US. Remember a place called Afghanistan? You know, the original source of our worries during 9/11? You know, the place Bill Clinton warned Bush about as he was packing up and leaving?

Oh, you must've forgotten, since Bill was being a naughty boy in the Oval Office. I dunno, at least during the Clinton years, we didn't have to worry about gas going over 2 dollars, or attacks on our soil, or religious fundamentalists taking over the political process.

George Jr. has successfully made the world a more dangerous place, and you're smoking the republican pipe likes its the best crack ever. Whats wrong with civilized discussion? Having your weapon in the room while you talk isn't the best way to make friends, and preemptive war has made life miserable for the entire planet, cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives, and yet you think it's better than talk?

I could make a generalized comment about Republicans too, but I'm not going to sink to your level.

just a thought

I think Imux and Timmy have very short memories. The terrorists were in Afghanistan not Iraq. Because of the Bush war on terror they are now in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Please explain how you consider that a victory.

ndnjones

I'd like to share a piece I wrote for the president's commemoration of the anniversary of his "mission accomplished" presentation.

Mission(s) accomplished
What most people don’t realize is that George W. Bush accomplished all his primary goals in the first few months of the war, and the banner heralding “mission accomplished” was correct.
1. By attacking at the time he did, he stopped Hussein switching to trading in Euros, not dollars, a change that Hussein had in motion. This saved Bush’s banking and finance friends from financial troubles.
2. By attacking when he did, he aborted the U.N.’s planned easing of trade sanctions, which most experts agree would have led to Hussein increasing his oil exporting. That would have lowered the price of oil, which would have hurt the profits of Bush’s oil friends, especially the Saudis. It would also have given the advantage to the Russians and Chinese, as Hussein had better relations with them and likely would have favored them over the U.S. in oil trading. That would have upset the advantage of power, both militarily and economically, which the American military-industrial complex always uses war to maintain. (The bottom line has been: if some country is starting to gain on us economically, or doesn’t allow our companies favored status, or just shows signs of out-competing us, and we can get away with it, we will somehow label them as a threat and send in our military to beat them up—see Blum’s Rogue State for details).
3. The fact that Bush’s oil company buddies failed to gain control of the Iraqi fields is secondary to the fact that the war weakened the oil output, keeping supply limited, thus providing an excuse to keep the price up. (In recent years, Iraqi oil has been flowing adequately, but the price of oil keeps going up anyway; the reason is gone, but the excuse remains; and Americans keep choosing to drive fuel-inefficient vehicles while complaining about gas prices, apparently forgetting the law of supply and demand).
4. It’s a known fact that the CIA had, in 2001, people in Afghanistan tracking Osama. After 9/11, they repeated their request for a few thousand troops, which is what they needed to capture him--no new troops, no new expenses, just use what the military already had to capture Bin Laden, on the ground. (By the way, for those of you who have wondered, this is probably the course that a president Gore would have taken, because it was a military option that was already on the table. Assuming, of course, that Gore would have ignored the intel reports warning of a 9/11 the way Bush’s people did; and not have had the air force unready to intercept multiple jumbo jets way off course; and then not have ordered the air force to stand down when one of those planes came right at D.C.). Unfortunately, that wasn’t Bush’s goal. Instead, he shut down the CIA operation and had the Air Force dump its inventory of bombs so that his defense contractor cohorts could sell the Air Force more bombs. This tactic also leads to #5.
5. By ensuring that he got the U.S. into an open-ended occupation, he opened the field for the defense-related industries to have a guaranteed source of income for years and years (at our expense). As a corollary, Iraq becomes a stepping stone to attacking Iran, promising more war business. And this boon to the defense industries has only cost us thousands of more GI deaths and injuries than a limited action in Afghanistan would have, and about a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, and over a million displaced Iraqis. The limited Afghan option would still have placed us militarily in a position to keep an eye on Iraq and Iran and to support a more comprehensive action against Hussein, employing economic, political, and even covert strategies backed by a military presence next door, costing billions of dollars less and a hundred thousand fewer lives, and probably not taking as long. Of course, without Bremer’s blunders, the current occupation would not have taken as long. (Bush could have consulted organizations with expertise in country-rebuilding, but instead chose to ignore them).
6. The other effect of the ongoing occupation has been to drain the federal budget, providing an excuse for conservatives to “have to” shut down the much-hated “liberal” domestic spending programs (would that the government were now “wasting” so little money as it used to on the “welfare nation”), which has then opened the door for further privatization, again benefiting big corporations that have zero public accountability (perhaps no coincidence that the presentation was made on the day that honors international labor).
7. Add in the excuses to undermine civil rights in the name of “homeland security”.
George W. Bush had effectively set all of this in motion—essentially a fait accompli--by the time he stepped onto that carrier deck.

Oh, and imuz, my wrist isn't limp when it hits my punching bag. Perhaps it's strong from reaching out to my neighbors. Anyway, don't show up in Colorado with that attitude. If I come across you, I might be inclined to give you a LIBERAL ass-whipping; and I can.

Pete

Wait a minute there Imux...weren't you the who blasted the idea of giving more favorable GI Bill benefits in a previous commentary? You got some nerve I suggest you grab your burnt American flag with YOUR limp wrist and shove em' up your ace! Respect the troops Imux.

Imux

Morons (Pete), how many friggin' times have I pointed out that some asshat likes to post as me to be... well... an asshat. I did not post that crap not supporting the GI bill. Every generation of my family has served (family name on WWII monument) and I currently have 2 nephews killing the evildoers over there, so we don't have to kill them there.

ndnjones, if you ever grow a set of nuts and decide to come to SOMERVILLE (you know.. the blog you're on now) then be prepared to get dropped faster than a pair of wedding night panties (or in your case, your bf's tightie-whities). As far as your post goes, I did exactly what - I am sure - President Bush did with it; printed it our and then wiped my @ss with it. That's how much it was worth.

To paraphrase Bill's original article and the moonbat subsequent posts... "Waaa... WAAA... I...WAAA.... HATE....WAAAA... Bush!... WAAAAAA". Who wants to listen to that? And do any of you think Barry Neville Hussien Chamberlain Obama will actually pull the troops out?? LMAO. Even that dummie will realize the surge worked and we've won.

Imux

My Friends,

Last week, Senator Obama made a few comments I would like to respond to. Senator Obama claimed that all John McCain has to offer is a naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk would cause Iran to give up their nuclear program. He should have known better.

I have some news for Senator Obama: Simply talking, even with soaring rhetoric, will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. And for the president of the United States to sit down for an unconditional, face-to-face meeting with the leader of Iran is simply reckless.

John McCain has made it very clear that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations. By conducting a presidential meeting with the leader of Iran - the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism - as Senator Obama wants to do, we would legitimize a regime that is dedicated to the extinction of Israel and is responsible for the death of brave young Americans.

And it doesn't stop with Iran. Barack Obama has said he would sit down, unconditionally, with the leaders of oppressive regimes around the world. Today, as many celebrate Cuban Independence Day, we are reminded how the Cuban people continue to live under tyranny on that imprisoned island. The Castro regime, for decades under Fidel and now under his brother Raul, enforces strict limits against freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement and speech. This regime led by Raul oppresses its people and regularly flaunts its hatred of the United States. Yet, Barack Obama said he would sit down, unconditionally, with Raul Castro.

It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world without enemies. But that's not the world in which we live, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.

That doubt is also manifested in Senator Obama's position on the war in Iraq, a topic on the mind of every American.

Senator Obama has said that if elected he will withdraw American troops from Iraq quickly, regardless of the situation on the ground and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. Frankly, his position is irresponsible and again raises questions to his judgment and preparedness to be commander in chief.

If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, claim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions. Iraq could easily descend into genocide and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of various factions.

A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran - the world's chief state supporter of terrorism, a country with nuclear ambitions and a regime with the stated desire to destroy the state of Israel - will view our withdrawal as a victory and will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. The consequences of our defeat will threaten us for years.

Those who argue for premature withdrawal, as Senator Obama and Senator Clinton do, are arguing for a course that will eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that will entail far greater dangers and consequences for years to come.

John McCain believes we need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq, or will hold unconditional talks with Iranian president Ahmadinejad. If you agree, please support John McCain to become our next president by making a donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or up to the legal limit of $2,300.

another thought

Imux you continue to try to baffle with bullshit, but you fail to answer the basic question. Before the victory,terrorists were in Afghanistan. Now they are in Afganistan, Pakistan and Iraq. How is that a victory???

Timmy

Amen to that. Pull the troops out and everything will be all better. Liberal Fantasy land.

As previously mentioned, "Iran will claim victory" and the U.S. will be perceived as weak. Just the act of traveling there and sitting down to have a conversation with the Iran President is an admission of FEAR and weakness. You don't acknowledge that kind of evil w/ respect or reaction(which is what those acts are).

Does anyone here(including the peanut gallery above) care to guess what happens next when an opposing country is perceived as weak?

anyone? anyone? anyone at all?

Imux

Pete, Another Thought, Timmy... That's what homosexuality does to your brain, silly Libaloons! McCain will win in a landslide because most Americans know that if we don't look strong we lose. And looking strong means attacking first, when the enemy is still weak. Kick them when they are down, this should be our motto. You are not Americans, you are just a bunch of pickle stroking wimps! Now let me go back to the cellar and drinks some more while watching some porn on cable.

Imux

Above post... not by the real Imux.

Tom

Imux should be waterboarded! His out of control rants are probably just an attempt to cover up some suspicious activities.

Real Imux

Fake Imux, previous two posts, but I agree with the first one. I'm the real one, you damn name-spoofing Libaloons.

Fake Imux

Shut up Real Imux, you are fake. I'm the real Imux! Who's that, Ron? William? Cowards, you should use your real name. McCain 2008!

Bill Shelton

"It’s a known fact that the CIA had, in 2001, people in Afghanistan tracking Osama. After 9/11, they repeated their request for a few thousand troops, which is what they needed to capture him--no new troops, no new expenses, just use what the military already had to capture Bin Laden, on the ground."

I'm usually suspicious of an assertion that begins with "It's a known fact." In this case, there is ample evidence to support it.

Four days after 9/11, the "principals" met at Camp David. The CIA had a fully developed operations plan for going into Afghanistan, taking out the Taliban and al-Quaeda camps, and capturing Osama. The Pentagon was caught flat-footed with no plan.

At the end of the meeting, Bush gave the leadership role to the CIA. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were PISSED.

The CIA was remarkable and swiftly effective. To complete the operation and capture Osama bin Laden, they needed and requested Army support. Rumsfeld withheld it. Days and then weeks passed. George Tenant complained. Rumsfeld went to the President and said, “the CIA has to work for me, or this isn’t going to work.” Bush caved in.

Rumsfeld sent the overdue troops. But by then, Osama had slipped away at Tora Bora.

Among the many corroborating sources on these facts are the testimony of Mike Delong, Gen. Tommy Franks chief of staff, and Cofer Black, who had led the team that developed the CIA plan and is now Co-Chairman of Blackwater. It's also laid out in a book called "Jawbreaker" (the code name of the CIA operation) by Gary Berntsen, the man who led it on the ground.

In support of some other points made above, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which is the consensus of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, is that the Iraq invasion has greatly expanded and widely distributed the the number and threat of anti-American terrorists. Foreign Policy magazine surveyed 120 U.S. foreign policy experts—Republicans and Democrats; former Secretaries of state, CIA directors, and national security advisers. Eighty-four percent said that the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorism rather than less.

But I guess that Gary Berntsen, Cofer Black, General Delong, and the foreign policy experts are all limp-wristed libaloons.

Imux

Bill, what is your point here? Last I checked Donald Rumsfeld got canned by President Bush (thanks to McCain pushing for it). Rumsfeld was wrong in the way he conducted the war and paid the price. McCain called for his ouster and for the surge -- and both worked wonderfully. McCain - and only John McCain - has the experience, the brains and guts to lead our nation during these troubled times. Was that your point? If so, I am with you on this one.

Barack "Neville Chamberlain" Obama doesn't even know where the s%#@tter is in the senate. He hasn't been there long enough to get a key. And the libaloons want him to president??? LOLOLOLOL!!! Barry wants to sit down and have tea with the terrorists!!! As if they're going to do anything other than saw his dumb head off.

And Slick Willy Clinton should have taken Osama out when he had the multiple opportunities to do so. He did not. NOW THAT'S A FACT!

William Hurst

Bush knew this, Clinton knew that. Who cares!!!! They both sucked as Presidents. Take your pick with either of these three McCain, Obama or Clinton II. They will be just as bad as the previous Presidents we had to suffer with. It is time to put aside political differences and act as Americans not Democrats or Republicans. Bill, Imux, et al is Massachusetts a one party state? We know the answer to that question. So what makes this state better than the other 49. Is Somerville a one party city? Instead of having Democrats and Republicans we have two idiot groups of Democrats one in control and the other trying to gain control. What has this achieved, nothing. Bush should of had the CIA assassinate Osama or capture him, but his oil buddies would not be able to make the billions in oil profits if he did this. According to Bill Maher by eliminating the Taliban, Halburton would never have been able to make Bush and Cheney the richest men in America. According to Bill O'Reilly, if Hillary Clinton stayed home and took care of Bill he would have been able to focus on the Middle East and terroism but he was to busy with Monica. Or let's put the blame on Bush/Iraq where it really belongs. The decision made by England with the backing of the League of Nations, thus allowing Israel to set up a homeland in the middle east.

William Hurst

In Shelton's article he kindly points out Bush's approval or disapproval rating. Well Bill, how is Nancy Pelosi et al doing? Do you know why congresses rating is worse than Bush's? Here is an excerpt from an interview with a congressman from Massachusetts. "Congressman what do you tell people who have to choose between putting food on their table and heating their homes". Answer, "Darfur". "Congressman what do you tell the elderly who have to make the choice of buying medicine or heating fuel." Answer, "Darfur". "Congressman did Deval Patrick hire everyone in your family?" Answer "Darfur". In this blog someone points to a possible "what would President Gore do or have done when faced with a certain situation. Well, he is not President. Before you start pointing a finger to the Supreme Court and Florida with your rants and raves and holding your breath remember this. He lost Tennessee. How can the former Senator of Tennessee lose his home state? What do the people of Tennessee know that we do not. These people live an Gores' back yard and voted for Bush. That is why Al Gore is not President. I do know this for a fact,as I am sure all of you reading this feel the same way. That if Gore were President he would have ended global warming and we would have winter in New England 365 days a year. Wow, think about how much oil we would be using then. Now on to the energy crisis. In order to get ourselves away from petroleum we must find other alternatives. Wind Farms would be one idea. No Bill that is a bad idea. It will spoil Teddy's view. How about Natural Gas? No Bill bad idea. There is no where to off load and store LNG, and any new pipeline will be used to bring in illegal immigrants and not Natural Gas. Nuclear Energy then? Not in my back yard. What do we do???? I don't know but you better do something. I have one solution. Build the "Wind Farm" over the T maintenance facilitiy. "TO BE CONTINUED"

William Hurst

Mobius, was there was a bombing in a parking lot underneath a building in New York City when Clinton was president. Bill Shelton, WMDs and George Bush? Bush acted on the intelligence he received by then President Clinton. You remember Bill don't you? William Jefferson Clinton stood before Congress, before the people of the United States of America, before the people of the world and stated "Iraq has WMDs" Saddam Hussein has WMDs and has and will continue to use them. Then he bombed them. Economic sanctions designed to bring a rogue nation into comliance do not work. Just ask Korea, Cuba, Iran etc etc.

William Hurst

Mobius, was there was a bombing in a parking lot underneath a building in New York City when Clinton was president. Bill Shelton, WMDs and George Bush? Bush acted on the intelligence he received by then President Clinton. You remember Bill don't you? William Jefferson Clinton stood before Congress, before the people of the United States of America, before the people of the world and stated "Iraq has WMDs" Saddam Hussein has WMDs and has and will continue to use them. Then he bombed them. Economic sanctions designed to bring a rogue nation into comliance do not work. Just ask Korea, Cuba, Iran etc etc.

Bill Shelton

Mr. Hurst,

You have been such a prolific poster in the last few days that I can’t keep up with you. There’s much in your first post that agree with.

Bush and Clinton “both sucked as Presidents.” Yep.

“McCain, Obama or Clinton II will be just as bad as the previous Presidents we had to suffer with.” It’s hard for me to believe that any one of those three could be worse, for reasons cited in my column.

“It is time to put aside political differences and act as Americans not Democrats or Republicans.” Amen!

“Is Massachusetts a one party state?” Yes, and that kind of perpetuation of concentrated power breeds complacency and encouraging corruption.

“So what makes this state better than the other 49?” Aside from the fact that you and I live here, not much.

“Instead of having Democrats and Republicans, [in Somerville] we have two idiot groups of Democrats one in control and the other trying to gain control. What has this achieved, nothing.” Yep. Although it looks to me more like there is one dominant political culture and that its defendants do what is necessary to prevent change, whether those changers can be demonized as “progressives,” or not.

“In Shelton's article he kindly points out Bush's approval or disapproval rating.” Yes, and I then say that popularity is not a good measure of presidential effectiveness.

Your account of the conversation with a Massachusetts Congressman is scary. Would you mind tell us who this was?

I see no merit in your suggestion that a majority of Tennessee voters’ choosing Bush of Gore is evidence of Gore’s unworthiness to be president. In fact, this would contradict your earlier point that public approval ratings don’t tell us much.

And pointing the finger at the Supreme Court is EXACTLY what we should be doing. Bear in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Florida’s own Supreme Court. Eighteen Florida counties,--comprising over a million votes--with serious voting irregularities were never recounted. And the written opinion of the 5-member U.S. Supreme Court majority is the only opinion ever written by that body that says it cannot be used as legal precedent. They, themselves, knew that it was bogus.

Also bogus (and here, I agree with you) is the notion that keeping rich people’s view of Nantucket Sound unobstructed is more important than solving our dependence on foreign oil. And I agree that we will need to develop more nuclear sources. I believe that the technology for doing this is much safer now than it was in the past.

The LNG questions, to me, is more problematic. I don’t say this for safety reasons, because I don’t know enough to have an opinion. Instead, it’s more dependence on a foreign source of fossil fuels that will only continue to raise exponentially in price. I do like your suggestion about building the wind farm over the T maintenance facility, but I’m afraid that the only wind that it would get would be the flatulence of politicians who confuse it with wisdom.

That’s enough from me for today.

Peace, out.

Diogenes

9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush. By the summer of 2001, a majority of the voters had realized that he was a buffoon, but they hadn't figured out how reckless and incompetent he was .

That summer, there was a Comedy Central sitcom called "That's My Bush" that ridiculed him. It ran throughout the U.S. and Europe, in Canada, and in Israel. What the public mostly didn't know yet was Bush's use of signing statements, his assault on the environment, favoritism to right-wing religious cults, corruption, and assault on the environment.

After 9/11, a traumatized country mindlessly gave Bush a blank check. He used it to push his most damaging policies to their extreme.

Now there's a Comedy Central animated series called "Lil' Bush." It's too late to limit the catastrophes caused by him, so the best that we can seem to do is laugh.

Maybe you can't fool all the people all of the time, but their are enough gullible fools that Americans keep electing people who destroy their future.

William Hurst

Bill Shelton, glad to see you are alive. My point on the Presidents approval rating is this, when has Congress had a lower approval rating? You fail to point that out. Pointing out Tennessee is EXACTLY what we should be doing. They did not want their own boy as President. WHY??? Going back to Florida, how hard is it to vote? Bill, what local congressman has Somalia and Darfur constantly on their mind? The US and Canada have very large amounts of LNG. Nobody wants the storage or off load facilities in their back yard. The midwest has enough coal that can be converted to oil which would reduce our dependancy on foreign crude oil to 0%. I do not favor some of this Presidents' policies, Iraq being one of them. This country does not have the stomach to win in Iraq. Look to Korea and Viet Nam for non winnable wars. War in Iraq is winnable but to defeat violance you must use violance. Saddam kept the peace better than we can. The Soviet Union with its foot on the throats of its people had less violance. You want to win in Iraq kill the killers and their families, friends and loved ones. That is how to keep the peace. Again look to the old Eastern European countries and the Middle East and see how they do it. I am not advocating this type of "keep the peace mentality" but this has become a politicians war and these cannot be won. By the way, for the past two years I have stated that volunteers are losing their lives in Iraq. Does anyone know what a volunteer is? How many non volunteers lost their lives in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam? Some of Bill Sheltons' writing is very good. Other articles read as if they were written for the New York Globe and Boston Times. Only one side of the story is written and that is the Democratic side.

William Hurst

Violance?? I need a proof reader.

Bill Shelton

Mr. Hurst,

Mr. Hurst. We both say what we honestly believe to be true. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we agree to disagree.

Sometimes we misunderstand each other. I too was horrified by your account of a Congressman who, in response to constituents real and dire concerns could only utter, "Darfur." Even though I believe that Darfur is a blight on the conscience of the world.

Congress's approval rating IS lower than the president's. I believe that the last time that this was not true was during the Watergate hearings. I didn't mention it because I was writing about Bush, and because I don't think that popularity is a particularly good indicator of a public official's effectiveness.

I'm pretty ignorant about LNG, except to know that it's a clean fuel. If we've got it, we ought to use it. I'm guessing that the NIMBYs will be shrieking when gas is $10 per gallon.

I am persuaded that climate change is real and the greatest threat to civilization. But the technology exists to remove and sequester carbon from coal-fired power plants. If this technology is used, I'm all for it.

I personally think that the New York Times is a very good newspaper. I think that the Globe is really disappointing.

I don't know anyone who doesn't take strong exception to some of the things that I believe to be true. Partly this is because my core values are conservative. But I believe that our economic and political institutions have evolved to the point where they cannot accommodate, and systematically violate, these values, including the values embedded in the U.S. Constitution. And I believe that real solutions all involve profound institutional change of the type most advocated by people on the Left.

I am not a liberal, but I don't have an easy descriptor for having conservative values but advocating radical solutions. All that I can do is test the truth of my own experience against the evidence that the world has to offer. I believe that you do the same thing.

Thanks for tolerating me.

William Hurst

Thank you Bill, Having been a reader of the New York Times I can honestly say it comes across as a primer for "How Democrats should think". Bill, people must begin to realize that both parties have faults and that both parties are failing the American people. Why must we listen to the constant "Vote for Democrats only, they can save us from the evil Republicans". Do the people saying that live in this state? A political party cannot have the motto "One size fits all". People should spend less time arguing about Bush and Iraq and spend more time going after our Senators and Congressmen to make real change. Change that benefits us, not change that benefits Congress and its members. They have a better health care plan than we do. Why is it that all Americans cannot have "Their Health Care Plan". Why is it we do not have "Their Retirement Plan". There was a time when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. Where is the change? Did they go after big business to increase their taxes and reduce ours? Did they do anything? When Clinton became President he did such a great job that control of congress went back to the Republicans. Why??

Imux

Bill Shelton scribbled "am not a liberal, but I don't have an easy descriptor for having conservative values but advocating radical solutions"

Bill, you owe me a keyboard now. I lost my morning coffee all over the table when I read that tripe. Not a LIBERAL!!!!??? You're left of left. A descriptor? Try this on for size; Godless, moral-less, treasonous, seditous, illegal-loving, criminal-hugging, terrorist-sympathizing, libaloon moonbat! How's that fit? Like a glove, doesn't it?

And I agree with William. Moonbats, give it up on Iraq. We've won. I don't even think you traitors could pull defeat from the jaws of victory at this point. It is obvious that everything went down the crapper once the democrats got control of the congress. Gas through the roof, mortgage crisis, housing slump, etc... all due to the do-nothing democrats in congress. We need change.

Hey, if you guys like Deval (can we impeach this @ss yet?) ... you're going to love Barry "Neville Chamberlain" Obama.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Most Recent Photos

  • Danehy_Park_Family_Day
  • Bloco
  • 3517a
  • Web_toon_7_21_10
  • Prospect hill
  • Web_toon_7_14_10
  • 3224a
  • Art1(2)
  • Art5
  • Art10(2)
  • Union_square_flood
  • Flood_pic_(bridge_1)