Sunday, 9/8/13, Public Square



by | September 8, 2013 · 6:00 am

8 responses to “Sunday, 9/8/13, Public Square

  1. This is stock full of info about one of the more insidious factions of today’s Republican Party.

    (from the link):

    It can’t be applied across a functioning society. What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power? A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress. A Secretary Norquist would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation, so that the already wealthy could exponentially compound their advantage, as the programs that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted. A Koch domestic policy would obliterate environmental standards for clean air and water, so that polluters could externalize all their costs onto other people.
    Radical libertarians would be great at destroying. They would have little concept of creating or governing. It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.

    Libertarians Are the New Communists

  2. Info on one of the dumber and more easily controlled factions of today’s Republican Party.

    The 1 percent played Tea Party for suckers

  3. So much for “spending more time with his family.” I think this is what they call Wingnut Welfare. Jump from government to think tanks. As Bush said, “gotta replenish the ol’ coffers.” Never mind. The Kochs take care of their own.

  4. I laugh out loud each time the challenges of the Republican Party are identified and republicans reply, “We’re not listening to (put some derogatory term for democrat here).” Or they’ll use some sarcastic way of saying we should mind our own business. Never once do they stop to think we’ve been through this with our own party, and we know a minimum of two strong parties is necessary to keep the other from over-reaching. This is a good read!

    (from the link): As long as aspirants for GOP leadership flinch from confronting their angry base, the American people will continue to see Republicans as uncompromising, uncaring and retrograde.

    And until party leaders are willing to call extremism by its rightful name, repudiating not just mean-spirited words but also narrow-minded policies, it is unlikely that any candidate will be willing to do so.

    How to save the Republican Party, courtesy of two Democrats

    • What brings me a belly laugh is to know that Ronald Reagan was the one that started this downfall of the Grand Old Party when he invited Jerry Falwell into the inner sanctum of the G.O.P.

      That was the start of this mean-spirited, downright hatred of anyone who is not ‘one of them’.

      These folks use Christianity as their cloak of godliness – and with each utterance out of their mouths – that cloak gets dirty and more dirty.

      Evil is seen as black – and I’ve seen some of these so-called Christian Conservative Republicans up close – their eyes are like two black holes filled with nothing but evil hatred.

      • If you doubt what I say – take another look at those people in line to buy an overpriced deep fried chicken sandwich just to show how much they love their Jesus and hate ‘those gays’…

      • I am very exhausted by the righteous who seem to have a Bible verse always at the ready for any and all occasions. I’m sincerely tickled they find comfort, solace, whatever it is they find in their scriptures they obviously think fit exactly the situation. I just wish they would sound even a teeny tiny bit comforted and a teeny tiny bit less judgmental. They sound pompous and angry when they begin and I tune out quickly. I’m pretty sure that kind of ugly is contagious and sure brings you down quick so I don’t want to be around it. You would think they would be smiling, full of sweetness and light, bringing joy to the world. Why are they exactly opposite?

  5. (from the link): There is such a thing as too much caution in committing force, often known as McClellanism after the reluctant-warrior Union commander at the start of the Civil War. (Leading of course to the famous line attributed to Lincoln, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”) And nations, like individuals, predictably over-learn the lessons of their most recent mistakes.

    But even if the Iraq-war disaster had not happened, even if the tiny handful of Americans who are in the military had not been worn out through a decade-plus of nonstop deployments, any decision about use of force should be accompanied by answers to these most basic questions:

    – What, exactly, is its goal?

    – How will we know if our plan has succeeded or failed?

    – What happens after we make our first move? In this case, suppose the Assad regime, or Iran, or Russia, responds in a way we don’t anticipate. What second- and third-round moves are we allowing for?

    – Is our choice really as stark as turning our back, or sending in bombs?

    The Best Result From Congress: A ‘No’ Vote on Syria
    “What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”