Xysea

This one is my absolute favorite, because it's easy enough for even the most simple-minded to understand, and it nails them completely.

:) posted 05/12/2008 at 17:49:51

Oh gee whiz! Where to begin?

Who has a stronger, more prosperous middle class? How about *Europe*? lol
Most of Europe is doing way better than we are, financially and socially.

The poor are better off in Europe, too, because there are programs designed to help them and lift them out of poverty. Programs we *gut* here, so that Bush could wage a pre-emptive war against Iraq that has been nothing but a money-sucking black hole and a disaster.

The poor have more opportunities for advancement in Canada and Europe. Right now, they have quite a few opportunities for advancement in India and China, too. Japan is the next wealthiest country behind the US.

C'mon, crack a book! Do the research! Get your head out of your ass. Seriously. The 'We are #1' thing only works if you're *actually #1* at things.

Google 'middle class losing ground' for starters. You'll get articles like these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101735.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.middleclass10apr10,0,1484513.story

Seriously. Wages have been stagnant and prices have been increasing over the last decade. The middle class is losing ground, with a divide between rich and poor now rivalling that of the 1920's. That is not a strong, prosperous middle class. That's a *disappearing* middle class.

The sooner you recognize this, and get on board with stopping it, the less idoitic and bubble-dwelling you'll sound. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:22:13

We allowed it. We gave it legitimacy by even entertaining it; we do this a quite a bit.

We watch Crossfire and George Stephanopoulos' show (and the now-defunct Tucker Carlson show) and give them a platform and validity.

I think quite a few Americans want to be told what to think about things because they are inherently too lazy to do it themselves, and they are biased against education and intellectualism. It's not cool to be well-read and smart. It makes you an 'elitist'.

It's one of the primary reasons our culture more closely resembles the movie 'Idiocracy' than it should. We don't need leaders we can share a beer with, folks, we need leaders who can *lead*. We need leaders to represent our interests, rather than those of corporations. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:12:40

We have no *true* left in the US, so there is no one to defend it against the bizarro and often quite wrong assertions about them made by the right. The left in the US is a myth, like unicorns or the Jersey devil...

The world has changed a lot since 9/11, but Americans haven't changed all that much. They're still greedy, afraid, self-interested and shallow. We didn't rise to the occasion, we wallowed in it - and this is the result.

Of course, we're only as good as our leaders, so that's no surprise....

There is a lot of behavior by my fellow Americans that I find mystifying - we rationalize torture, invasion of privacy, butchering of our principles and our Constitution. We talk about $400 haircuts, soundbites, punditry as if they mean *something* when they don't, but we won't address healthcare, fair working standards, poverty or global warming until we have no other choice. We have no idea how far behind the rest of the world we are in education, development, human rights and the like, because we're too busy talking about how great we are, how great America is.

A lot less talk, and a little more action would be appropriate. Do something, then brag. It's not rocket s cience. posted 04/23/2008 at 08:39:11

Oh, this is priceless and dead-on. Thank you so much for putting this out there... posted 04/11/2008 at 09:12:24

No, no and no.

Nothing is going to change, or if it does it will only be temporary. The problems are not, and never really have been, military in nature. There is no military solution in Iraq other than dropping a nuke and killing everyone there and making it a barren wasteland no one wants.

The political and diplomatic solutions are not forthcoming.

We have deposed their dictator. We have poured money into that hole. We have given American lives.

Enough is enough; withdraw with as much dignity as we can muster, acknowledge the Bush Administration's utter failure and *learn* everything we can from this debacle. posted 04/08/2008 at 09:52:04

They probably shouldn't have been grabbing at anything. Perhaps the signs, chants and humiliation of China should be enough... posted 04/07/2008 at 16:29:36

My Buddhist sentiment, as you call it, registers violence against *anyone* by *anyone*, and abhors it.

Are you saying some violence is okay, as long as it's directed toward people you don't like?! posted 04/07/2008 at 16:28:26

Some of these protesters were within arm's length of the torch bearer. Split hairs all you want, but I shudder to think what might have happened without police controls.

Make no mistake; I am a Buddhist, I support a free Tibet and I don't object to the protests. But I cannot condone people being harmed, and much like the Dalai Lama I am not interested in a full boycott. posted 04/07/2008 at 14:54:31

Actually, I agree with the use of the Olympics to gain world attention for the Tibetan struggle for independence. However I'm not sure that I understand the logic behind how attacking a torch bearer who is not guilty of human rights abuses, and abusing his human rights, is supposed to demonstrate to the world that human rights abuses are wrong.

Can someone explain that one? posted 04/07/2008 at 13:50:41

I am not naive. I see things differently than you do. No need to be insulting. I'm sure you're sure you've 'seen the light' and the rest of us dolts are just scrambling around in the dark, but please try to keep your self-congratulatory tone to yourself. It makes you seem more pleasant than you really are.

The one thing that is still possible in America is for someone to hold a different, or dissenting opinion. Let's not go all the way fascist and take that away too, okay.

Try to restrain yourself. posted 04/07/2008 at 15:00:28

The evidence is circumstantial at best, so...I still think it's open to interpretation. Hillary hasn't seemed extremely savvy this time around, not her usual savvy anyway. I don't know, nor does anyone here, the inner workings of her campaign.

I agree with the political theater part, but I tend to think they made up a reason to get rid of a horrible campaign advisor who has failed miserably at his job, rather than it being a giant conspiracy to hide a trade pact with Columbia. I mean, think how dumb that would be. It's not like they could hide it forever... posted 04/07/2008 at 13:46:23

That's a little too 'conspiracy theorist' for me, and a heckuva lot of 'pretending'. I think she probably thought he was 'part of the team'. And he was. It was just his own team of one. lol

Mr. Penn is a greedy, unscrupulous, amoral type of person who worries more about where he's going to make his next big score, than the will of the American people. I hope the door doesn't hit him in the ass on the way out.

Good riddance. posted 04/07/2008 at 10:31:02

Look, I'm just not all that surprised he stabbed her in the back. Lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. People judge you by who you hang around with, by the way. That was something my mother told me long ago, and it's held up.

I think the Clinton campaign is demonstrating that politics for its own sake is a vicious, empty thing. If anything, can we take away from this debacle the fact that doing something for the benefit of the largest possible group of people is not a bad thing?

The 'Me Decade' seems to have extended well past the 1970's. I think it's time to make the next one the 'We Decade'. posted 04/07/2008 at 10:14:59

Wait, I don't get it.

You can't embrace your body, enjoy giving and receiving se/xpleasure AND be in a monogamous, trusting, adult relationship? Who knew?! Wait til I tell my boyfriend. I bet he'll be shocked to hear it. lol posted 04/07/2008 at 15:09:41

I guess my greater concern right now, though I concede your point, is the 20% on either side of the Obama/Clinton divide who won't vote for the other guy, who would rather vote for McCain.

We have to convince them that to do so would be a disaster of epic proportions. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:55:58

When people have nothing to lose, then they'll take to the streets. Not before. I am not saying a tanking economy is a good thing, but some people need more prodding than others. posted 03/27/2008 at 16:57:52