>> ^Psychologic:
Even though Palin says some funny (and inaccurate) things, you can't really fault her on not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It has meant multiple things throughout the years, so no one can really claim that it only means one specific idea.

I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

As you can see, there have been numerous doctrines throughout the years, i.e. the Monroe Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, and Bush Doctrine. It is fairly obvious that Gibson is referring to this definition of doctrine, and Palin should know what is meant by "Bush Doctrine" as a candidate for 2nd in command of a superpower. She doesn't, just going by her response, "In what respect, Charlie?"

I agree that Bush has all kinds of retarded ideas, beliefs, and policies, but using the word "doctrine" really only specifies foreign policy. And I know of no other foreign policy of Bush other than minimal diplomacy and maximum warmongering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

President Eisenhower saw the shitstorm coming...Let the borders remain relatively unmanned, fast forward 50 years and the exponential increase in illegals dilutes the demographics, and criminals as well as hard-working folks who want stuff (that has been instilled in us for a long time, preoccupation with money, leisure, entertainment, hell after working all week you need an out, Romans had their coliseum to keep them preoccupied, modern man has been engineered around several money-sucking diversions as well)

Once the problem has been created through neglect and encouragement in this case, the solution is also provided by the puppet leaders-and diversions such as racism, are icing on the cake-Keep the monkeys distracted with bullshit, and watch the place turn into something they have to "control"

Forest for the trees, baby...Y'all screaming racist, need to warn the messicans.....Oh, guy in the vid is a moron, has very limited survival instincts....

Realize that Obama and MCcain are the same. Puppets for the corporation.

Those all important detention camps that are going up all over the united states, can and will be used to house american citizens.

First the immigrants, then the liberals, then the moderates, then the non supportive citizens against government overpower.

One president is not going to make a difference, these things have been going on since Eisenhower.

WWII Interment camps:
Amache (Granada), Colorado
Gila River, Arizona
Heart Mountain, Wyoming
Jerome, Arkansas
Manzanar, California
Minidoka, Idaho
Poston (aka Colorado River), Arizona
Rohwer, Arkansas
Tule Lake, California

http://www.rense.com/general17/statebystate.htm List of modern "temporary detainment" camps.

Money runs the show here people, it keeps the non active masses hypnotized by TV and Violent Video games from ever finding out the truth. Which no politician will ever give you.

Read a bit of Jeremy Scahill. Alex jones is not crazy for no reason, he is crazy because the government puts in policies that are good, and then fails to police them once they violate the constitution.

Every person immigrant or not is afforded the right to Habeas Corpus. If Obama can put a stop to that I would like to see him do it.

CFR:
-William Bundy credited the CFR's study groups with helping to lay the framework of thinking that led to the Marshall Plan and NATO.

-The Council served as a "breeding ground" for important American policies such as mutual deterrence, arms control, and nuclear non-proliferation.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower chaired a CFR study group while he served as President of Columbia University.


and

-The John Birch Society believes that the CFR plans a one-world government.



So you've got Alex Jones, Ron Paul and a bunch of Birchers, all pissing and moaning because of 1)The Marshall Plan & NATO 2) Nuclear Non-proliferation 3)The guy who warned us all against the "military industrial complex".


Puke.

You guys should go back to your "WTC7 was a timed demolition!!"

Why shouldn't they enter a war with whomever they wish, including us? They're just following the same money-making tactics the U.S. has employed since Eisenhower stepped down.

Oh yeah, that's right. Because it's wrong. There are other ways to increase your sovereignty and make worship to the true god of this world, if that's your true goal.

161 more days. Let's just hope he doesn't do something incredibly stupid in that time. Given his track record, I'm not holding my breath.

I learn and teach proper gun safety. Just as any one else needs to learn how to drive a car safely. Yes I agree with common sense gun laws, but like copyright laws, FISA, and Patriot Act (Espionage Act)I do not agree with the amendments of very well written laws that already do their jobs.

He struck down Illinois gun rights, Chicago anti gun laws(supports them), and the right to own a Semi Auto in certain states. When there are bans on Semi Auto, Full Auto pistols, then there is a ban on the majority of handguns by proxy. Pump guns and Revolvers are unwieldy, I'm not talking about the right to defense I'm talking about the right to own and bear weapons that are formidable to the weapons that the good guys have.

They dont want the people to have these weapons because as is said: it impedes the right of them to enforce laws. No, it scares the shit out of authority, which is exactly what is needed. Criminals could care less what gun laws you put out there. Again I agree with common sense laws, but I do not agree with radical expansion of said laws.

On another note: Mcain is bush, Obama is a Fake Idol, Nader is a conspiracy theorist, and Lobbyist are money grubbing ass hats. The choice is? Gotdamn that's a tough choice.


Eisenhower said "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Washington said "Beware of foreign entanglements."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
To choggie, many presidents have warned us and yet we still continue to follow the lead lemming.

but it still doesn't hammer home his point:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

>> ^raddishs:
The music was rather distracting and too loud.


x2, almost made me withhold my upvote.

Whoa, simmer down there boiling water. Fiscal irresponsibility and nation-building are Democratic "things", too. Democrats have proven to be interventionists. Have we forgotten about Wilsonian interventionism? Woodrow Wilson believed every man had the right to self-determination and further believed it was America's duty to protect democracy throughout the world. Wilson sent troops to Mexico to proclaim martial law during a revolution. He was quoted saying his efforts were to "teach Latin Americans to elect good men." And, let us not forget his interventionist role in Europe which aided in the Versailles Treaty. We know how that ended for us.

What about Franklin Roosevelt? Hey, tell me which right-wing mouthpiece publication is responsible for this quote: "Franklin Roosevelt relished his nation-building" Fox News? Nope. The New York Times did in regards to his interventionist policies in Haiti. FDR even said "I wrote Haiti's Constitution myself, and if I do say it, it was a pretty good little Constitution."

What about Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? The Vietnam War has been categorized as LBJ's war. But, our involvement with Vietnam started during the cold war, which started to be realized when Harry S. Truman tried to contain communism in Southeast Asia in the 50s. And, hell, JFK was guilty of increasing financial aid and advisory assistance in South Vietnam. He fully adopted the National Security Action Memorandum 52 which was left over from the Eisenhower Administration that read in regards to South Vietnam: "The U.S. objective and concept of operations stated in the report are approved: to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological and covert character designed to achieve this objective."

Will that do or should I continue?

>> ^shuac:
Can you imagine another wartime president behaving in this manner? Can you see Eisenhower, Truman, LBJ or even Nixon acting so carefree while thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed?
Clearly, Bush has no sense of decency. I am ashamed of him.


there fixed that for you.

Can you imagine another wartime president behaving in this manner? Can you see Eisenhower, Truman, LBJ or even Nixon acting so carefree while thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed?

Clearly, Bush has no sense of decency. I am ashamed for him.

BansheeX: Anyway, I always hold that Democrats are just Libertarians who don't know it yet.

Weird how perspective changes things. Mid 40s now and I considered myself a conservative/libertarian at least through my 30s, these days I see two libertarian parties rather than one and no real conservatives left. Not the people I considered conservative at least. Repubs joined with dems to go after Nixon, if it wasn't for that he wouldn't have left. They don't do that now though. Eisenhower, not hippies, gave us the term "military/industrial complex. That type of conservative no longer exists. I don't follow any party or leader and haven't for ages.

Libertarian first of all has at least two faces, probably three or more. There's the business libertarian who isn't in the end much different from or better than the neocon. They helped to provide both the dems and the repubs with the moral "high ground" required to deregulate the hell out of everything and allow consolidation of power and influence in the hands of a very few. To restrict them in any way wasn't 'free markets' and that's what we were all about we thought. They have done SO much damage.

Second kind would be the social libertarian, those I like still if they have some common sense about extremes. To me there's little difference between a social libertarian with some common sense about extremes and a lot of progressives. Both against the drug war, against allowing the State into our bedrooms and private lives, and on the same side of lots of other issues. They often just don't know it yet, haven't looked honestly at each other rather than being told what the other stands for.

Then there's the "I just want to be left alone" type. They have no idea what any of it stands for and they are too often quick to impose their will on others but they don't want anyone telling them what to do and they can't see the problem with their position.

Dems and repub are both empty shells, fill them with whatever you want to fill them with. Repub at one time was the party of Lincoln, then it became the party of the rich. Dems at one time in the south at least was the party of racism and the status quo and that lasted at least through the start of the civil rights era, they did good for a few years then got their ass kicked in 68-72 and just gave up to let the DLC take over. Since then it's been in one measure or another a show. The dems and repubs put on a show fight or pretend to fight about social issues that never really change no matter who is in charge, in the meantime the business block does great no matter who is in charge. When it's the repubs in charge it's obvious, when it's the dems between the minority repubs and the dlc dems nothing really changes, and it hasn't for decades. The differences are both superficial and in places that really don't matter to the money flow. It's just bait to keep us dumb voters happy as if we did have choices.

It's all branding and marketing these days and no party actually means anything that will last. Ideals mean something if you stick to them but those ideals aren't tied to repub, dem, or libertarian, they just live in our minds. They are tied to rational thought and deep skepticism about all parties or other special interests. What do they have to gain, who is telling me things, and why? Past that screw the parties, once they get you to following the "brand" they can get you to follow them about anywhere and we'd see it for ourselves if we'd just look.

"As the pivotal intellect in the breaking of the German Enigma codes, Turing arguably made a greater contribution to defeating the Nazis than Eisenhower or Churchill. Thanks to Turing and his 'Ultra' colleagues at Bletchley Park, Allied generals in the field were consistently, over long periods of the war, privy to details German plans before the German generals had time to implement them. After the war, when Turing's role was no longer top secret, he should have been knighted and feted as a saviour of his nation. Instead, this gentle, stammering, eccentric genius was destroyed, for a 'crime', committed in private, which harmed nobody. Once again, the unmistakable trademark of the faith-based moralizer is to care passionately about what other people do (or even think) in private." -- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

>> ^NetRunner:
I think the phrase Ellen was searching for was "separate, but equal."


Ah, good ol' Plessy vs. Ferguson. Thankfully Warren had a head on his shoulders when he stuck it down with Brown v. Board of Education. I think Eisenhower is still spinning in his grave...

I suggest you read the studies you cite before you propose that conservatism is a form of 'mental illness', the study itself was carried out to link a hypotheses to the idea that conservatism shares common treads as a whole or independently with regards to rigidity, inequality and unwillingness to be open to new ideas.

"Our first assumption, too, is that conservative ideologies – like virtually all other belief systems – are adopted in part because they satisfy some psychological needs. This does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Never does it claim conservatism is a form of mental illness, the study states itself that it is not judgmental with regards to political spectrums. Was Theodore Roosevelt mentally ill? Margaret Thatcher? Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Furthermore different political stands are psychologically more comfortable depending on the situation, post 9-11 it was psychologically more comfortable to become politically conservative due to the psychological motivators of fear and threat kicking in becoming more rigid and reactionary against threats that appeared and an effort to return to the 'good old days'. Claiming Bush is a conservative is laughable, since he is not a conservative, he is a religious right wing authoritarian.

I think saying one political sphere is better then another is rather silly, each persons political stance is highly nuanced beyond simply labels such as democrat, republican, liberal or conservative. Andrew Sullivan can be called a religious conservative, but he is pro-gay rights, and is supportive of Barack Obama. Where is his mental illness then?