jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (109 posts)

Liberals & Socialists Stand with Muslim Brotherhood in Common Cause

  1. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    According to the New York Times:

    In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly nonideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.



    I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me, said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots.


    They [Muslim Brotherhood] always have a hidden agenda, we know, and you never know when power comes how they will behave. But they are very good with organizing, they are calling for a civil state just like everyone else, so let them have a political party just like everyone else  they will not win more than 10 percent, I think.

    Many in the circle, in fact, met during their university days.

    Islam Lotfi, a lawyer who is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Youth, said his group used to enlist others from the tiny leftist parties to stand with them in calling for civil liberties, to make their cause seem more universal. Many are now allies in the revolt, including Zyad el-Elaimy, a 30-year-old lawyer who was then the leader of a communist group.


    Mr. Elaimy, who was imprisoned four times and suffered multiple broken limbs from torture for his political work, now works as an assistant to Mohamed ElBaradei, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    In turn, his group built ties to other young organizers like Ms. Moore.

    The seeds of the revolt were planted around the time of the uprising in Tunisia, when Walid Rachid, 27, a liaison from an online group called the April 6 Movement, sent a note to the anonymous administrator of an anti-torture Facebook page asking for marketing help with a day of protest on Jan. 25, Mr. Rachid recalled. He wondered why the administrator would communicate only by Google instant message. In fact, it was someone he already knew: Mr. Ghonim, the Google executive.

    The day of the protest, the group tried a feint to throw off the police. The organizers let it be known that they intended to gather at a mosque in an upscale neighborhood in central Cairo, and the police gathered there in force. But the organizers set out instead for a poor neighborhood nearby, Mr. Elaimy recalled.

    Starting in a poor neighborhood was itself an experiment. We always start from the elite, with the same faces, Mr. Lotfi said. So this time we thought, let try.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/world … r=1&hp




    Gosh golly gee whiz!!!!!!!   You mean it isn't a tea party in Tahrir Square!   Well I'll be darned!   Shocking!  Just shocking!   These people were *gasp* organized???   By leftists??



    By the way we do know how they will behave.   Muslim Brotherhood organization Hamas has taken over Lebanon which is now effectively ruled by Iran.   And of course there is Gaza.

    1. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Does anyone know how many militant extremist groups there are in the region?

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.meforum.org/687/the-muslim-b … -of-europe

        Muslim Brotherhood is the most far reaching, organized and committed fundamentalist group.  They act as a focal point for multiple front groups through out the Middle East, Europe and here.  Yassir Arrafat belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood before the PLO.  The Muslim Brotherhood killed Anwar Sadat.  During WWII the Brotherhood sought to support the Nazis.  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem raised troops for Hitler.

        Now we are told that they are almost as loving and gentle as the Sisters of Charity rather than the SS.  The history of most revolutions is that the most committed, organized and ruthless will eventually control the revolution.  The Bolsheviks(the "Majority")  were tiny compared to the Mensheviks but were more organized, violent and ruthless.

        The army's officers might be dedicated to the peace with Israel, Egyptian growth, Friendship with the west and preservation of order but the rank and file are peasants who may support The Brotherhood.  Time will tell but I am not optimistic.

      2. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Habee - The movement in Egypt is mostly young people - Muslim and not radicalized. Within the Muslim Brotherhood, there are likely some radicalized cells.  The Muslim Brotherhood amounts to 10 to 15% of the pro-democracy movement.

        There are two options in Egypt. 1) Support democracy and allow potentially violent factions a voice OR  2) suppress democracy and empower dictators to oppress the bad guys (and oppress any good guys who oppose the dictator).

        This isn't hard if you believe in the rights of man and accept the risk of a free state run by the people.

        1. habee profile image89
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug, I was talking about the Middle East, in general, and to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas originated from the MB.

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    Yep.  They're all very good at getting underhanded, bad, things done.

  3. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    When I learned that the Muslim Brotherhood was four-square behind the revolution in Tunisia– and was gearing up for the protests (the Friday ‘Day of Rage’) in Egypt, I knew something really bad was afoot.


    Many commentators, like Mark Levin and John Bolton, have correctly pointed out that, even if the Brotherhood was not involved in the genesis of these anti-regime protests, their main beneficiary would certainly be the most organized group in Egypt (and with a massive secret support network, even in America), the Muslim Brotherhood.



    Readers of Big Peace– and, especially, readers of the Team B II report, Shariah: The Threat to America– will be familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood.


    The mainstream media and most commentators you’ll see on tv have plenty of catching up to do. Unfortunately, we’ve already seen some spinning in the Ikhwan’s favor, buying wholesale into their rhetoric about democracy, human rights and political legitimacy that are about as transparently opportunistic as their English and Arabic websites.



    It should come as no surprise, then, that the hard left– aligned always with elements of the most radical Islamists against US interests– are joining the battle on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.


    This repeats the pattern begun during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, as leftists like Michel Foucault serenaded Ayatollah Khomeini and the promise of a theocratic regime in that country.

    That a homosexual like Foucault would prefer the Shariah-adherent totalitarianism that was unleashed in Iran to the more pro-Western Shah is testament to the hard left’s fetishization of the post-colonial narrative: anything but America, and the more militantly anti-American, the more “legitimate.”

    Dinesh D’Souza argued, I believe convincingly, last year that Obama is similarly predisposed.



    And so it goes today. The Stalinist front group International ANSWER sent out an email to its Washington, DC minions to join in protests against the Mubarak regime.

    http://bigpeace.com/dreaboi/2011/01/29/ … e-mubarak/

    1. kephrira profile image59
      kephriraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I've never understood that tendency of the left wing to be more willing to stand up for the rights of those who want to oppress them that for their own culture / way of life.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, we moderate liberals like to think that even people who don't like us have rights. I know, it's a crazy notion, right?

        Plus, mainstream US culture doesn't seem to need a lot of help to keep on keeping on. It seems like unnecessary effort to fight for the rights of someone whose rights are secure. I mean, it's like using a ladder to slam-dunk a basketball and then trying to make it a big deal that you dunked.

        1. kephrira profile image59
          kephriraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The way you put that makes it sound as if I was trying to suggest some people should have no rights, which I wasn't.

          But sometimes there is a clash andyou have to look at priorities, and it seems to me like some people on the left get their priorities pretty mixed up

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, putting democracy high on the priority list probably does seem pretty mixed up to conservatives...

  4. lady_love158 profile image58
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    Looks like Glenn Beck was right! The MB is working behind the scenes for the destruction of Israel as well as promoting the spread of Sharia law yes in America as well! There is even a connection between Obama and the MB which might explain why he refuses to condemn them or even admit they are a terrorist organiz
    ation... here it is in their own words!

    http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=17570

  5. Jeff Berndt profile image88
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    OMG! We should be very very afraid! Because...wait, none of the arguments for fear make any kind of sense.

    The protesters include the Muslim Brotherhood, of course, but they also include women (hardly to be expected in a group composed only of Conservative Muslim Extremists), business owners, Christians, and others.

    The protesters are calling for free, fair, democratic elections. Hardly something that alQaida would support. In fact, it sounds very...what's the word...republican! (Note the small r.)

    And who are they protesting against? A strongman supported by foreign dollars who has never been elected in a free, fair, democratic election.

    And they're doing all of this without a single suicide bomber, in spite of some serious provocation by Mubarak's supporters (who may or may not have been hired to beat up the protesters).

    The people want a democratic election. Why is that so scary?

    Oh, I know! Because the people might elect someone we don't like. That would put Conservatives in the awkward position of supporting democracy, but only if the process gives us results we like. Kind of like what happened when Hamas was elected in Palestine. Or when Obama was elected in the USA.

    Go Democracy! (Except when a scary person who disagrees with us gets elected: then it's okay to revolt.)

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sure we should support the democratic elections of people like Chavez Castro and Hitler an old MB ally!

      http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/mbhood_en.html

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        MB? Milton-Bradley?

        Anyway, let's take a look at the history of US-backed strongmen.

        The Shah. Saddam (he was our guy once, remember?). Batitsta (the reason for Castro). Noriega. There are probably others I can't think of off the top of my head. And now Mubarak.

        Backing strongmen only works in the short-term, that is, until the strongman loses his grip. And then the world is less stable.

        When it comes down to it, it's a question of the US being true to its own values. Are we going to claim to be a Beacon of Freedom and Justice while hiring foreign thugs to oppress foreign people just so a foreign thug who won't let the US do as it pleases won't get to do the oppressing?

        Doesn't seem right to me. We should support democratic elections. If the people elect a bad guy, we can apply diplomatic pressure to limit the bad guy's influence on the world stage, but to not recognize the results of a free democratic election? That's--to borrow a phrase--un-American.

        1. lady_love158 profile image58
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Who is suggesting we not recognize the result of a free an;d fair election?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well, when Hamas was elected in Palestine, rather than recognize the result of the democratic election and work with the democratically elected leaders, the US cut them off, claiming that they weren't legitimate. It wasn't a suggestion, it was an action.

            And of course, elements of the American radical right are trying to claim that Obama isn't a legitimate US president. I can't imagine what their basis is for this conclusion.

            It wouldn't be a democratic election if you get to just trash any results you don't care for.

            1. profile image62
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So based on your example are you suggesting that if the US stops Military support for Egypt we are NOT supporting free and fair elections? For arguments sake. Lets say the MB wins a free and fair election.

              1. lady_love158 profile image58
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Recognition and support are 2 different things!  I wonder how free, fair and legitimate the elections in Gaza were? Even if they were there is NO reason for the USA to support the winners, Ha mas is a recognized terrorist organization.

                I don't see why we should remove support from Mubarak either and certainly it wouldn't make sense for us to desire the Muslim Brotherhood to gain any power in Egypt who we have supplied with weaponry which could be used against our other allies in the region.

                Sure in the perfect world we would just mind our own business, but it seems government isn't capable of that.

                1. profile image62
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course they are two different issues. Thats my point. If we did continue to support their military under my scenario, would it be the first time we armed someone to the teeth only to have them turn on us? NO. It's time we DEMAND that government START minding our business and not others.

                  Egypt will be a tough one to leave be. Two words Suez Cannal.....

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  From lady_love:
                  "I don't see why we should remove support from Mubarak either"
                  We shouldn't, and we didn't. Nobody suggested that we ought to.

                  "Recognition and support are 2 different things!"
                  Very true. I hope that when the new government of Egypt is elected, that we recognize it as legitimate.

                  "I don't see why we should remove support from Mubarak either"
                  He's an oppressive dictator, but at least he's our repressive dictator, eh?

                  "it wouldn't make sense for us to desire the Muslim Brotherhood to gain any power in Egypt"
                  Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean we should keep propping up a repressive dictator (which goes against everything the US is meant to believe in).

                  "So based on your example are you suggesting that if the US stops Military support for Egypt we are NOT supporting free and fair elections?"
                  Check it: the US props up a dictator in Egypt for 30 years (all the while claiming to support democracy). A popular uprising leads to a free, fair, open, democratic election and the formation of a new government in Egypt. If we do not recognize the legitimacy of this new government, absolutely is means we're not supporting free and fair elections.

                  If we stop supporting Egypt when the new government takes over from Mubarak, no matter what the reason, it will look like the US supports dictators but don't support democratically elected leaders. Actually, I ought to have said, "...it will be further evidence that..." since historically we have supported dictators and withdrawn support for their popular replacements.

                  From CJ:
                  "Lets say the MB wins a free and fair election."
                  Okay, let's say they do. Does that make the results of the election illegitimate?

                  "If we did continue to support their military under my scenario, would it be the first time we armed someone to the teeth only to have them turn on us? NO. "
                  If we stop supporting Egypt, they have no reason at all not to blame us for supporting Mubarak for the past 30 years, and that past 30 years' worth of military support might just be turned against us anyway.

                  But you raise a good point: pretty much every time we've backed a dictator, the people have eventually overthrown him, making the world less stable and turning that country at least into a volunteer enemy of the US instead of a paid ally. Perhaps the US should stop propping up dictators?

                  1. profile image62
                    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Indeed. The west in general and the US in particular. Specifically with the middle east. Since Carter our dealings with the middle east have become more and more problematic.

                    Look at Egypt now. Don't you think some believe "Democracy" is what they have had for the last 30 years? Think that's what they want now? We have made a HUGE MESS! Same with Iran, Same with Iraq and we are working on a real beauty in Afghanistan. These are just the biggies. We tend to forget about Lybia, Yemen and a whole section of North Africa and the Pacific Islands.

            2. habee profile image89
              habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Gosh, Jeff - I'm surprised you don't understand this. You know that Obama isn't an American, right? He's not even a human. He was born on a far distant planet, so he's actually an "illegal alien." lol

              Obama is completely eligible to be POTUS. I didn't vote for him, and I often disagree with him, but I have to admit that he's beginning to grow on me.

              1. profile image62
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "he's beginning to grow on me"

                I had that problem with Clinton. I feel it building with Obama too. I believe he's getting President lessons from Clinton!LOL. It's hard to disagree with someone you like.

                1. habee profile image89
                  habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny how you and I so often agree, CJ. Perhaps we're long lost siblings?? lol

                  1. profile image62
                    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Who knows my Father was a truck driver and a sailor....LOL

  6. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "the destruction of Israel"
    No, it's the destruction of the brutal, criminal Zionists---it's NOT the same thing.


    "Kind of like what happened when Hamas was elected in Palestine. Or when Obama was elected in the USA."

    Never put those 2 together before, but you are absolutely right.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You know what else is interesting? I just read a hub by Freeway Flyer that mentions W's assertion that if we invade Iraq and lay some democracy on them, it will inspire other nations in the region to whip up some democracy of their own.

      Why aren't the Radical Right shouting "I told you so!" at the top of their lungs?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Why aren't the Radical Right shouting "I told you so!" at the top of their lungs?"

        I'm not sure who the "Radical Right" is but conservatives are saying exactly that.

        Bush was right.

        If Egypt wants a radical left wing government then they should be able to have it.

        The U.S. can decide then if they want to continue to fund such a government.

        "The people want a democratic election. Why is that so scary?"

        "Oh, I know! Because the people might elect someone we don't like. That would put Conservatives in the awkward position of supporting democracy, but only if the process gives us results we like. Kind of like what happened when Hamas was elected in Palestine. Or when Obama was elected in the USA."

        The only reason Obama was elected is because he wasn't George W Bush.

        We are starting to see that was a large mistake that will soon be corrected.

        1. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          McCain wasn't George Bush either was he? Kind of blows a hole in your theory doesn't it?

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Not at all. roll

            What did the left call McCain?

            "George W Bush lite"

            Obama was elected because people wanted change.

            They got change for the worse.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Huh, most of the conservative voices I've heard so far have been repeating shrill paranoid warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood and some kind of conspiracy.

          I may have missed something, though.

          But no, Bush wasn't necessarily right. Opressed people eventually revolt if you oppress them enough for long enough. It happened in Iran when our guy the Shah was running the place. It happened in Cuba when our guy Batista was running the place. Etc.

          My question wasn't meant to be an endorsement of W's stupid policy of inflicting democracy on countries whose former US-allied strongmen have gone rogue, but rather to point out the absurdity of fearing a home-grown popular democratic movement in an Arab country after supporting the promotion of democracy from without at the point of a gun.

          1. profile image62
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see it....this "homegrown democracy movement" You know what, I don't care. I want the US to get out of the Middle East all together.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "I want the US to get out of the Middle East all together."
              I'll drink to that!

              1. profile image62
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                FINALLY! LOL I can't tell you how much it burns me to here people say "Those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for our Freedom" NO THEY ARE NOT! They are fighting because of failed diplomatic policy. Diplomatic policy driven by OIL.

                1. DTR0005 profile image82
                  DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Here here! - There is no "our freedom" about it.  Truly well-said.

            2. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm skeptical too...will have to see who benefits...as always.

              Out of the Middle East?...that's not happening anytime soon with this Congress.

              I would bet the new House will request MORE aid over there now.

              1. profile image62
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Probably will request aid, hell the President may even ask for it. It's not a right or left issue. It's the diplomatic strategy of the US. It needs to change. Egypt is very critical to US trade because of the Suez Cannal.
                Personally I hope the MB does take over. I hope they sever all ties with us. I hope they shut down the suez cannal. Know why? Because Obama won't do a darn thing. Oh the right will call him weak, maybe it's true. However, for what ever his reasoning, he will be making the right decision. The US MUST BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT. The US MUST INCREASE EXPORTS. As long as we are entangled in the middle east, NEITHER will happen.

                1. DTR0005 profile image82
                  DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Double here here! (to energy independency)  Though I certainly don't wish ill on the Egyptians or on us. It's very likely few people on this forum have ever been to Egypt or have ever talked with "an Egyptian." I lucked out in both regards.
                  And this is only a personal account, but Egypt is indeed a very secular nation but more importantly, a culture based in secularism. Egyptians are, by and large, extremely well-educated and a very rational people. Arab nations may be geographically close to one another and share a common language, but the cultural differences between these countries are quite stunning. In short, I am going to take the optimist's view. I believe they will do the right thing.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps the best reason to avoid shouts of huzzah is the immediacy of events in the Middle East.  The dust hasn't settled yet.  It took the Bolsheviks time to wrest control of the Russian Revolution from the non-communists.  It took time for the French Revolution to degenerate into the Reign of Terror. 

        It is also too early because Egypt is, for now, a military state.  Whether or not that subsides in favor of a democratic state has yet to be seen.  It is likely that the military will do as they have done before, elevate one of their own to head the Egyptian state.

        It is also too soon to declare victory in a democratic revolution because the democratic traditions of the Middle East is one man, one vote, one time.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "It took the Bolsheviks time to wrest control of the Russian Revolution from the non-communists.  It took time for the French Revolution to degenerate into the Reign of Terror. "

          And it took time for the United States to write a working constitution that protected the people from the tyranny of both the government and the mob.

          "Whether or not that subsides in favor of a democratic state has yet to be seen."
          Absolutely true, but it's a bit cynical to assume that this step forward will necessarily be followed by two steps back.

          I'm cautiously optimistic, with an emphasis on optimistic.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Optimism in a Middle Eastern military take over evolving into a constitutional democracy.  That is a rather modest use of optimism - wouldn't delusional be a better choice of words?

            1. Paraglider profile image89
              Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The movement was a genuine grass roots revolt against Mubarak and his oppressive private militia who have been keeping the people down for decades. The army is genuinely popular (and largely conscript, so very much 'of the people', though of course the generals are another matter). The Iranian regime are trying to characterise the revolution as another 1979 Islamic revolution, but in fact it has much more in common with the 2009 uprising which nearly overturned the Iranian government. Optimism is not misplaced here, though of course there is a long way to go.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The most violent, organized and ruthless faction will control the revolution.  The Iranian uprising failed because the Iranian government is the most organize, violent and ruthless.  This is what history teaches.

                1. Paraglider profile image89
                  Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Let's wait and see. There are lessons from history, sure. But there are also global societal changes. The next Iranian uprising will probably succeed.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What has changed is the technology we use, we haven't changed.  The next Iranian uprising will probably be put down with even greater violence.  There have been very few revolutions that haven't degenerated into chaos or evolved into a new tyranny.  Those few exceptions would be Ukraine's velvet revolution whose outcome has been contested by the Russians ever since and the American revolution which has been contested ever since by internal forces seeking to restore a powerful central authority.

  7. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Me, for one. You and your crowd have never given Obama's presidency any legitimacy. You act like it is a fluke to be ignored until you can get your people back in.

  8. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Why aren't the Radical Right shouting "I told you so!" at the top of their lungs?"

    Can only be one reason.
    It's the "wrong kind" of Democracy.

  9. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Why can't..err  WON'T liberals keep their eyes on the ball.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The question you should be asking is, "Why won't Americans learn that it's a dumb idea to support oppressive dictators?"

  10. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    So true. I think there may be a formal name for this:
    "The Reagan Syndrome" lol

  11. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "The US MUST BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT. The US MUST INCREASE EXPORTS."

    Both things Obama has advocated. But since he said it, you know it will be bashed as some sort of secret plot to destroy America....more people must speak up!!!

    And we are entangled in the Middle East for more than the Suez Canal. And that is a Taboo subject, as you know.
    One word gets you fired.

  12. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I know I'm naive about such things, but what would happen if we stopped sending aid to other countries and helped our own poor instead? What if we used only our own oil reserves long enough to hold us until we could establish other forms of energy? If we weren't all over the globe, couldn't we put a huge dent in the military budget, while doing a better job of securing our own borders? Why wouldn't more of an isolationist policy work? Are other nations really any of our business?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because big business(Big Brother) wouldn't like it!  smile

      1. habee profile image89
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's always about the money, ain't it??

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Isolationism? No, I don't like it. It abdicates any shared responsibility for global stability and freedom (which can go hand in hand outside our borders, despite what some would have us believe).

      I'd prefer a policy of diplomatic and economic engagement, and a kind of military isolationism, where we don't send in the Marines any time there's a hiccup in the geopolitical firmament. Scaling back on global deployment will make it harder for people who don't like us to 1) target our troops and 2) point to our troops' presence as evidence of American Imperialism and use them as a recruiting tool.

      Let's be friends to everyone who deserves it, and support our friends. Let's encourage everyone else to deserve our friendship.

      And above all, let's do everything we can to deserve our own friendship, because we fall short entirely too often.

    3. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this
    4. profile image62
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, we would be in a MUCH better position. The problem is that at the end of WWII popular opinion was that America's policy of "ISOLATIONISM" made the issues leading to WWII worse. Couldn't be further from the truth. In fact we were only "isolationist" on the surface. Under the covers we along with the UK were manipulating the hell out of Japan and Germany. We know where that led. Guess what that was about? OIL.

      The US needs a foriegn policy and trade policy that reflects our own VALUES. We should not isolate ourselves, but isolate those we see as unfriendly to democracy. We completely disagree with most of the Middle East on social issues. Therefore we should isolate them in regards to trade and aid. We completely disagree with most of Asia's ideas on intilectual property. Therefore we shouldn't outsource manufacturing to ASIA! I know all of this sounds radical. Consider this: "Practice what you Preach" That's a phrase that most Americans would agree with.....

      The world has grown smaller. That makes it more complicated. The average US Citizen has to step it up in regards to their Political IQ. We are electing the WRONG People.

  13. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Press TV's interview with Said Zulficar, a political analyst in the capital Cairo, regarding the latest developments in the crisis-hit country and what might follow.

    Now what is [Vice President] Omar Suleiman's position? No one knows that he remains in his position as vice president. The government of course is going to be changed. But the top brass, all of the members of this military council, [are] all very close hand-picked generals picked by Mubarak over the years. And obviously screened by CIA. So I still have reservations, we're just starting. We have succeeded in a very important step which is getting rid of Mubarak. But Mubarak for the past five years has not been governing this country. He's been sitting in Sharm el-Sheikh where he is now; he has been for five years. He hardly ever comes to Cairo. It has been run by General Omar Suleiman who was vice president until a couple of hours ago, may still be. It was run, from security point of view and from a foreign policy point of view by Omar Suleiman. He is a close friend of the Israelis and of the Americans. Nothing has changed. "

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/164844.html

    SUNDAY, JANUARY 30, 2011
    How the Muslim Brotherhood Saved the US Dollar

    "There are two truths that the Anglo Elites know all two well: democracy in the West means a ruling oligarchy with good PR, democracy in the Middle East means Islamic Jihadists and Fundamentalists. This has been a fact for many years and is not, in any way a shock or disconnect for any of the American elites now backing "democracy" revolutions.

    The American media and their other Western underlings and affiliates, are doing their part in colouring these as peoples' fights for freedom and human rights. Of course they know full well what this will lead to: Islamic fundamentalism, what is the only result that this has ever led to. Then when this happens, when the correct end result is in place, those very same self serving hypocrites, will throw up their hands and declare that they are shocked that those stupid, dirty Arabs could not make any go of "freedom" even after all the help they were given."

    http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2011/01/ … ollar.html

  14. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Nice theory but our “friends” gauge their friendliness on the amount of money we give them. The disadvantage of being a superpower is like being the only guy with money in a bar full on friends. They get drunk and rowdy while you end up covering the tab, posting bail and paying for the damages.

    1. DTR0005 profile image82
      DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's a very good point, but the pessimist in my has to wonder if part of the glad-handing of money in the way of foreign aid we dole out isn't an attempt to "smooth over" some of our past and present military misadventures. Just a thought...

  15. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Economic reforms have improved Egypt's economic outlook and added diversity to the system.   It is absolutely in everyone's interest to maintain stability.   More Egyptians have become accustomed to having hope for a good (western style) future.



    http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/egypt/

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed and nudge the Egyptian army to move the country toward democracy and stability.

  16. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Indeedy, Deeds.  smile


    Egypt needs an Attaturk.

  17. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    I'm not claiming that we have evolved into different beings, but we have certainly acquired different expectations from earlier generations. In part that is due to technologies.
    I find your fatalistic or pessimistic view rather lacking in vision. But as I said before, let's wait and see.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Pessimistic - can you name a revolution that didn't become a killing floor or establish a different tyranny?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Industrial Revolution.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This from the socialist?? Didn't the Industrial Revolution lead to the further and more thorough oppression of the worker.  Isn't the corporate state just another kind of tyranny?  Was the Industrial Revolution a political revolution against the political establishment?  I thought the Industrial Revolution was a shift in cultural, economic and technological methods of production similar to the agricultural revolution.  Besides, I thought the Luddites could be violent.

  18. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "the American revolution which has been contested ever since by internal forces seeking to restore a powerful central authority." Those internal forces succeeded about a hundred years ago with the assassination of William McKinley.

  19. mortimerjackson profile image60
    mortimerjacksonposted 6 years ago

    Yay. Let's pick on the brown people. Because we all know that people who wear turbans on their heads and worship a different god than Christ are all evil. I mean, of course.

  20. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/37.gifhttp://www.cool-smileys.com/images/37.gifhttp://www.cool-smileys.com/images/37.gif

    http://newpics.org/jenny/content/binary/IMG_1606.JPG

    HUH??

    1. Flightkeeper profile image72
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, it's the standard lefty attack where they accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being racist.  How original.

      Not!

  21. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Over 100 protesters in the Egyptian Revolution were killed, by goon squads or whoever. And the protests remained peaceful and non-violent for the most part until pro-Mubarek goon squads showed up. Incredible discipline that they never became a mob.

    My guess is that they can handle democracy just fine. The demographics suggest that they are mostly young, mostly Muslim, and mostly non-radicalized. It will be a new relationship for the US to have a friend in the region who's not bought-and-paid-for.

    Thankfully, we have a president who made it clear that the US supports the people of Egypt, and we respected the right of the Egyptian people to assemble and voice their concerns. So we started off on the right foot with the new government.

    What's really weird is the wingnuts who are trying to spin the Egyptian Revolution as a bad thing. Voters should remember who supports the principle of self-determination around the globe.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps Shining Handsome Obama learned his lesson from ignoring a much more important uprising in Iran last year.  Perhaps next time the Iranian people rise up against a regime that makes Mubarack's look tame SHO will speak out against the brutality there, which is continuing apace as Ahmadinejad's government is executing dissidents.

      The opportunity to speak out against repressive regimes never disappears but SHO embraces Hugo Chavez and Hu Jintao while the former seizes control of broadcast facilities and the former retains in prison the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize recipient.  Reluctant to offend the indefensible SHO pushes the Dalai Lama out the back door.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image72
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I doube that the Shiny One would take a leadership role, he waits until he knows which way the wind is definitely blowing before he declares himself for who he thinks will win.  Then the lamestream media just slobbers all over him and declares him as the force behind it all.  It's just so sick.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          indeed

      2. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        President Obama let the Egyptian Revolution play out. Egypt is not the 5st state. Maybe no one told you, but Iran is a sovereign country. If you paid any attention to the WH press conference on Fri or other statements from the WH, you would see that the administration HAS made a link between the popular uprising in Egypt and the repression in Iraq.

        True, President Obama hasn't threatened to nuke anyone in two years and that's a big disappointment for some.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I stopped paying attention to the White House - The President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence and Director of National Intelligence couldn't stick to one policy position, one description of Mubarak or one characterization of the assassins of Nasser and Sadat - the Muslim Brotherhood.  By adopting a vast prism of responses the White House positioned itself to be correct regardless of the immediate out come. 

          There has been no democratic revolution in Egypt.  There is a military government that has dissolved parliament, supplanted the executive and abrogated the constitution.  An inauspicious beginning for a new democratic state but not for a dictatorship. This is not the praised and predicted outcome (or were those orders?) of the Obama administration.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "I stopped paying attention to the White House - The President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence and Director of National Intelligence ......"

            Now we know why you are so uninformed. You only get information from Fox.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Really, because I don't pay attention to a White House incapable of presenting a cogent foreign policy I am uninformed.  And because I don't agree with  you I must get all my information from fox.  You are brilliant...and the beat goes on....

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The W Whitehouse's foreign policy was pretty haphazard in my opinion, but I still paid attention to what it was doing, what it was saying, and the disconnect between them.

                Just like I'm paying attention to the disconnects (fewer, and some different ones, but still plenty of them) in this administration.

            2. AnnCee profile image70
              AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Doug Hughes, do you ever argue a point?  Do you always resort to idiotic personal insults. 

              I say it's a real shame the way the left has managed to dumb itself down.

              Good thing conservatives said no to the program.

              And who is this "we" you refer to?

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The beat is the same song Doug and others of similar twist always sing.  If you aren't a liberal you are evil - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc... or you are an idiot.  It is best to just play music in your head when they start that silliness.  You will not be disappointed.  I like that old Sonny and Cher tune ...and the beat goes on....

              2. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Is it a personal insult to suggest a conservative depends on the twisted lies of Fox for information?

                Well, I guess it is, actually. I apologize.

          2. Flightkeeper profile image72
            Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That sound you heard was Obama quickly backtracking before anyone remembers that he publicly supported the ouster of Mubarak.  When the world realizes that a coup just took place, Shiny doesn't want it to look like he supported it even though he did.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Let's stick to Shining Handsome since Barack Hussein translates as Shining Handsome.  I would not call him shine if I were you.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image72
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't call him Shine, I call him Shiny.  For me it fits. wink

          3. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If it was orders, it was not from Obama. IMO. If you are going in that line of thinking, they take orders from someone else...

            But--I am the same as you, only in the other direction. I just cannot STOMACHE to listen to anybody on the right. I can't stand it. It is like listening to someone from another planet. Someone who means to do me harm.

            1. AnnCee profile image70
              AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting.   Has a conservative ever physically threatened or attacked you?

              There does indeed seem to be a schism dividing left and right. 

              I feel the same way, sort of "at risk", when I wear a Tea Party T-shirt instead of an Obama or Che T-shirt in certain college towns.

              This year in my city the Republican party inexplicably failed to receive all of the yard signs we had ordered.  MANY of the ones we did place were quickly and viciously destroyed.   Not just pushed over, but ripped to shreds with posts bent and destroyed as if by a group of raging gorillas.  No way we could just go stand them up again.   So we let them lie as testament to the peacefulness of the left.




                 

              http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not another planet.  It is more like looking through the lens of a microscope and seeing that the protists on the slide are farting or something like it that passes gas or messages or something.  All I can tell is that they like doing it even though it fouls the air.  It is hard not to shout, "Stop it!"  But what would be the use, they are protists.

  22. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Perhaps the Shiny One will embrace the Tea Party and respect Americans' right to disagree with him!! 

    http://www.bbsradio.com/userfiles/image/Image/When%20Pigs%20Fly/WhenPigsFly.jpg

    Come on.  It can happen.  http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/msg/site/9/el/thumbsup_2.gif

    1. Flightkeeper profile image72
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol You know, when Shiny sat down with some Republicans to lunch, because you know, they won, I actually was scanning the skies -- you never know.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I sincerely doubt that any major candidate of either party will 'embrace' the tea party lunatics, though the GOP nominee will likely suck up without becoming a member.

      On the other hand, President Obama has never discouraged any individual or peaceful group from offering opinions or participating in government even when their views were insane.

      1. AnnCee profile image70
        AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Turning 'teabagger' into a slur

        On March 19, New York's Gabriel Sherman took an early look at Jonathan Alter's book on the Obama presidency and highlighted one of Alter's more freewheeling interviews with the commander in chief.

            In an interview with Alter on November 30, Obama offered that Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans."

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- … _slur.html


        Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics
        Skew right politically, but have typical profile by age, education, and employment
        by Lydia Saad
        Page: 12

        PRINCETON, NJ -- Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

        Affiliation With Tea Party Movement

        Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.

        Profile of Tea Party Supporters -- Areas of Divergence From National Adults

        In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.

        Profile of Tea Party Supporters -- Areas of Similarity to National Adults

        A Uniformly Negative Reaction to Health Bill

        Over the past year, Tea Party movement activists -- originally kindled by grass-roots opposition to the economic stimulus bill and taxpayer bailouts of homeowners -- came out strongly against the Democrats' national healthcare reform plans. That stance is evident in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, in which 87% of Tea Party supporters -- versus 50% of all Americans -- say they consider passage of healthcare reform a bad thing.

        While opposition to the healthcare bill is perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of Tea Party supporters in the new poll, their views on abortion are also notable. Nearly two-thirds consider themselves "pro-life" on the abortion issue, compared with 46% of all national adults.

        Profile of Tea Party Supporters -- Issue Stances

        More generally, a separate question included in the March 26-28 poll showed that 37% of Americans view the Tea Party movement favorably and 40% unfavorably, with the remainder expressing no opinion. Predictably, Republicans and conservatives are most likely to have favorable opinions.

        Survey Methods

        Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,033 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 26-28, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

        Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

        In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-p … phics.aspx

        Not that pesky polls and the president's own words matter.  Why ruin a perfectly good and useful liberal fantasy?

  23. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I think anything could happen....
    One thing's for sure...it couldn't get much worse than Mubarak!

    That greed-ball had his assets frozen from his Swiss bank!!

    3 Billion he had.....while people starved.

    Sounds much like our country in a way....and funny who was so close with ole Hosni....funny indeed.

    I SURE hope this is the real deal.

    1. WalterDamage profile image59
      WalterDamageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm wondering, LMC, exactly how much of my income do you believe you are entitled to?

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Huh?

  24. IntimatEvolution profile image80
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    This is how all extremist terrorist groups come to power.  We've seen it in Iran thirty years ago, we saw it happen to Afgan twenty years ago.........  Hell, this is the type of tactic used to over take China fifty years ago!  Has no one ever read of the Dali Lama's plight, and how he had to escape Tibet in the 1950's?  He doesn't live in India because he wants too, you know.

    Why does this surprise so many people?  This is what these Muslim, religious groups do- they lie in wait until the opportunity is right to seize power.  I'm shocked that so many people, apparently don't know their history.  People like Obama, Clinton, and so many other International figures around the world.  You'd think colleges would be teaching this stuff.  Especially Harvard of all places.  That's the real danger here folks!  Uneducated leaders with the nuclear codes, generally I would guess, is not a wise thing.  Look at North Korea as an example.  Obama has lost my support over this Egyptian mess.   He clearly is out classed and out maneuvered on this one.  Which makes him a poor "world leader."  That's just my opinion.

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is another possibility... that they DO know their history that they are well funded (Soros) and working behind the scenes to orchestrate their agenda... one world government with them in charge of course!

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Can't say that I agreed with that sentiment.  I guess we all have no choice but to sit and wait.

  25. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    The people of Egypt are not going to trade one terrorist leadership for another....I think we have seen their determination.

    And I for one agree with people who say Butt Out!

    WHO they decide on is their business, not ours.
    If we don't like it, take the $$ away...simple.

    Suez Canal...oh well. If we are so stupid as to ignore reality for the sake of oil men, we deserve what we get.

    The Egyptians are not stupid! They want the same things we all do.
    How they get it is up to them.

  26. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Has a conservative ever physically threatened or attacked you?"

    Their ideas are anti-woman, and anti-people, IMO.
    Pro-money, that's all.

    For, if they were for freedom, they would lay off my private life.
    If they were for people--they would cut from defense rather than discretionary spending.

    They are cold-blooded money managers, as far as I can tell.
    All that matters to them is the bottom line.
    And their ideology.

    They seem to think they OWN America. Seem to see me as an unwelcome, useless guest in THEIR country.

    1. AnnCee profile image70
      AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In what way?  Have you seen the videos of the Planned Parenthood workers advising supposed pimps about how to get abortions for underaged sex workers?   How do you feel about sex slavery?  I don't hear any outrage from the loving left on this and many other issues, like forced marriages and suppression of women by Muslims even in this country.  Where are your examples of Conservatives threatening or suppressing women??



      Yet you are comfortable with the Obama administration having access to your private health records and to their deciding which procedures are necessary for you and to force you to buy insurance or have a fine deducted right out of your pay check by the IRS.  Have you considered that all these rights to your body you are willing to give to a Democrat administration will one day be controlled by a Republican administration?



      I don't know if you remember this or not.  After the cold war with the USSR was declared over people talked about something called a "peace dividend."   There was the fantasy that all these sacks of money were just hanging out there ready to be redistributed toward social programs.  But it didn't happen.   There were no bags of actual money.   That's not how a budget works.  Congress spends non-existent "tomorrow" money.  The military is an economy in itself.   It is also an industry.  It is also a jobs program.   It is also an educational system.  It is also a stabilizing force and a humanitarian force and a diplomatic force in the world.





      In actual fact there was a change in business management philosophy in the 1960's.  Prior to that the business model included a view of workers as human beings with human needs.  The new model adopted in universities in the 1960's says that workers are "units of production," transferrable, temporary, replaceable, and disposable.  It was at that time that companies began using the workforce as the first line in making their numbers work profitably.  Need more profit?  Layoff workers or suppress wages.  Easy peasey.   Guess who was in charge of the universities that adopted this model and educated future executives?  (Hint:  Conservatives have never controlled education.)



      It is sad that you feel disenfranchised.  People from all over the world come to America because they had no opportunity to freely exercise their talents to prosper.  Not everyone has the talent, ambition, and energy to prosper that's for sure.  But it used to be a pretty sure bet that if you merely got out of bed in the morning and showed up at your job to do your best you would end up having a pretty decent life with comfortable perks undreamed of by MOST of the population of the world.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Where are your examples of Conservatives threatening or suppressing women??"
        You mean like this?

        Yes, forced abortions in the US territory of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which top republicans, including Tom Delay, knew about and suppressed, while democrats were trying to stop them.

        "if you merely got out of bed in the morning and showed up at your job to do your best you would end up having a pretty decent life with comfortable perks undreamed of by MOST of the population of the world."
        That's not what the women at the Marinaras Islands sweatshops encountered.

        Careful, your jingoism is showing.

        1. AnnCee profile image70
          AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah that's a terrible thing.   The story Ms. Mag is interested in is the story of conservatives.   They don't make a peep about mistreated women otherwise. 

          It is Laura Bush who still works tirelessly to help the women of Afghanistan become educated and independent. They don't make a peep about that either.

          Careful.  Your dire ignorance is showing.

          http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats


          All of this while phony liberals spread their tentacles of death pretending to be helping the world's poor through agencies of the United Nations and other population control groups practicing euthanasia by neglect and lies.   

          It's an ugly world alright and liberals make it deadly with their insane do-goodism.

          http://saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/black-genocide.jpg



          http://www.ihatethemedia.com/cdc-report … u-kux-klan

      2. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You have a very jaundiced view of the rest of the world.

      3. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        1.  Abortion

        2. Here's what Vermont is doing...they want States freedom to do as they wish with healthcare, BUT they will adhere to the Obama adm that all people be covered. In other words, State's Rights, but don't degrade the standards. Repub states, on the other hand, want the freedom to degrade standards and go back to the way it was....Insurance Rules/Bottom-Line Deathcare.

        3. It also wastes UNHEARD of amounts of money!! Billions "missing" from Iraq...no one cared! Billions missing right before 9/11.....and? How is that better than extending CHIPS to more kids in America?

        4. Don't blame education for what business does. That is hardly an excuse! It's like saying...my friend stole a candy-bar, so I did too. I blame universities for a lot....but not Haliburton!

        5. All my grandparents came here for opportunity. They would not have recognized America cira 2000-2008. My dad didn't, and he was their kid!

        goodbye--finally!! Chris's big mouth is going.

 
working