May God have mercy on this nation’s political soul

Now that we’ve all had a chance to see the parade of wannabes from both sides of the political aisle stake out their so-called positions on the issues in two tightly-controlled, and endlessly boring, “debates” the only conclusion that any sane person can reach is “oh my God, we’re in a lot of trouble.”

Thursday night’s Republican debacle…I mean debate…staged in grand style under the wings of Ronald Reagan’s Air Force One Boeing 707 at the late President’s library showcased just how out of touch the party of the elephant is with mainstream America.

The candidates avoided any mention of President George W. Bush. Not surprising. You don’t get elected by tying yourself to a failed leader with a 30 percent job approval. So they invoked the memory of a dead President – Reagan – hoping the myth might overshadow reality and, somehow, help their faltering election hopes.

It won’t. Reagan is not the political god that Republicans try to create in such hushed tones and the GOP that these candidates represent today is a far cry from the party that existed when the Gipper served in office.

While Democrats seek political extinction through moderation and capitulation, Republicans, for the most part, stick with the same, tired, extremist agenda that alienates voters.

GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani may avoid mentioning George W. Bush but he sounds a lot like Dubya. Democrats, he says, run and hide from terrorism and only he and the GOP can save America.

John McCain, who may set a record in the speed that he drops from presumed frontrunner to actual also-ran, says war is the only answer.

Mitt Romney says a lot of things – most of them contradictory. He may or may not be a hunter, depending on the day. He may or may not support abortion. Heck, he may or may not be a Republican.

As for the rest of the field, who knows and who cares? Under George W. Bush’s tortured tenure, Republicans have become the party of excess, even fielding more candidates for President than the Democrats and suffering from more hot button issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research and the biggie: Bush’s illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

Bringing up Ronald Reagan’s name 19 times won’t save the Republican Party. Drafting lawyer-actor-former Senator Fred Thompson won’t either.

But the GOP still has the same ace in the hole that has served them so well in the past two Presidential elections: The Democrats.

They can hope the party of the jackass lives up to expectations and delivers an opponent as lackluster as Al Gore or as fatally-flawed as John Kerry. Based on what we’ve seen from that side of the aisle, it can still happen. As Hillary tries to prove she has more balls than her opponents and can be blacker than Obama and Obama tries to overcome the political liability of an unfortunate middle name and emerging skeletons from his closet, John Edwards sits down for high-priced haircuts and proves that trial lawyers really are scum of the earth while the rest of the Democratic field avoids straying from their consultant-prepared and focus-group-honed talking points.

The so-called Democratic leadership in Congress isn’t helping. They hem and haw and posture and moan while Bush sets the agenda and makes them look like castrated fools.

Somewhere, there may be a leader who can guide this nation out of the morass created by too many years of both Republican and Democratic mismanagement.

Unfortunately, he or she is probably too smart to run for President.

45 Responses to "May God have mercy on this nation’s political soul"

  1. VietnamVet  May 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    What an appropriate location to spread more of the GOP propaganda! Reagan is/was one of the worst frauds ever heaped on the American people. Not only did he preside over the failed concept of trickle down economics, but he was responsible for increasing the national debt to epic levels to finance that folly. The increase in that debt has only been exceeded by the current nut we have in the white house. His supporters also falsely give him credit for single handingly winning the cold war, which was fought by every one of his modern day predecessors. Then there was Iran-Contra, and all the lying that took place there, and the subsequent “pardons.” One could go on and on, but…. One of the best presidents of the last century? Give me a break, please!

  2. anthny  May 4, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    anthny:
    During the debate last night they kept bringing up the hostages that Reagan had released.
    The problem with that was Reagan went behind Carters back and broke a pile of laws. I do not have the mental capacity to remember them but if anyone ever goes to Consortium News they will get all the information they need.
    And Ron Paul does seem to be free from Black Mail and so does Gravel on the Dems side.
    I already read the two should run together as President and Vice-President. It could work, they are for the people and the rest of these guys seem to be for the corporations or are just so self-centered they would bring in more of the same.

  3. Steve Horn  May 4, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    I agree with you – however in the current state of the American political world being clean doesn’t matter – witness John Kerry – decorated vietnam vet – went where few wanted to go out of a sense of duty – served his country with honor. Came back from Vietnam a changed man, saw the futility of war and spoke out against it – but he did so AFTER having served.

    His record was spun with such fervor by the Republican machine in 04 that somehow, George W. Bush, whom was not even remembered by other members of his ANG unit because of his drunken AWOL episodes, was seen in a “better” light than Kerry.

    If there is no real dirt, the spin doctors will create speculative dirt – true bullshit – I’ll admit – but to the average voter who has a hard time concentrating through a 30 second sound bite – who doesn’t take the time to research the facts, speculative dirt is enough –

    Isn’t the invasion of his personal life the reason H. Ross bagged out?

    Of course, without the massive funding that enables these attacks, the playing field would be far more even –

    Peace

    Steve

  4. T.M. Williams  May 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    I know you had to shovel through a lot of manure to get to him, but Ron Paul owned this debate in the few minutes they gave him.

    • Paul was the only one proposing non-intervention in foreign affairs.
    • Paul was the only one to point out the federal inflation “tax” that is destroying our currency.
    • Paul was the only one to point out that stem cell research is not for the federal government to subsidize or prevent.
    • Paul was the only one to oppose the national ID card.

    And through all that, he came across as an actual human being, as opposed to the creepy snake-oil peddlers surrounding him invoking death and the gates of hell.

    This debate was a slam-dunk win for Paul, whom many Americans have only now met for the first time, but to read the media accounts you’d think this was merely a chat between the Anointed Three and their seven yes-men. I fully expected this from the mainstream media, but I am disappointed to see Mr. Thompson make the same omission, when Ron Paul would seem to be the only candidate addressing his many serious concerns.

  5. Carl Nemo  May 4, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    Thanks Doug for succinctly nailing down the nauseating “morning-after” feeling I and no doubt many others had after listening to these annointed mattoids.

    I guess between the losers the Dems are proffering and this current “gang of ten” Republicans we witnessed last night, it will affirm the old saying that “in the land of the blind the man/woman with one eye is king/queen”.

    America is ripe for some fresh talent to jump onto the political scene, a much younger man or woman that’s linked to the younger folks, along with more progressive ideas. Of course they will have to be at least age 35 and will also have to money, lots of it with no ties to the labrynthine MIC, and the globalist NWO corporatist crowd.

    It seems dark forces have won utilizing their political modus operandi; i.e., offering a bunch of dogs and we get to choose the least offensive in the end. All the dogs are trained to feed from the same hand! We’ll probably end up with Hillary squaring off against McCain…! Wow, sorry I said that, now I’ve even made myself more ill than when I started typing
    this… :))

    Who knows maybe it is “the water”. After 50+ plus years their fluoridated water scheme/agenda has finally worked. America has truly become an “Idiocracy” and the people we see running for the Presidency represent the quality of leadership we truly do deserve.

  6. CheckerboardStrangler  May 4, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    No good deed goes unpunished.
    Perhaps Doug Thompson’s self-preservation instinct kicked in, but then again he’s already on the NoFly List, so what’s a little laudatory comment to Ron Paul going to do…get him kicked upstairs to the NoDrive List?

  7. marjacdj3  May 4, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    Doug how you can fail to mention Ron Paul is beyond me. Can you please address this? As far as I’m concerned he is our only chance.

  8. Sandy Price  May 4, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    You are so right about Ron Paul. Many of us have respected his political opinions for years. Back in 1999, I flew all the way to Atlanta just hear him speak. I came home convinced that he may be the only real American alive at that time. I also met Lew Rockwell and became an instant fan of both men.

    I think the hard core Republicans (Goldwater) will vote for Dr. Paul. But do they realize that without like-minded house and senate members, his hands will be tied.

    It may be too late to even hope for a sound GOP to ever surface. We have had too many social conservatives trying to bring their agendas in.

    I’ve been writing to the Arizona GOP group here for many years trying to get them off the social issues and on to the issues of Ron Paul. I’ve had no luck. I may try again since Paul did so well in the debate last night.

    We all need to keep in mind the issues that Paul represents and grow from there. He not only wants a limited government but has already figured out how to do it; what to cut back, etc. His ideas of fixing the tax problems that would eliminate the IRS are great!

  9. bwoodard  May 4, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Doug
    Many other CHB readers have noted Dr. Paul’s strong showing in last night’s debate. By your comments, it would appear you didn’t watch the debate.

    Here’s a top notch person with no skeletons, a truly amazing consistent member of Congress who has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never taken a government paid junket, returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the Treasury each year, voted ‘no’ on the Patriot Act, ‘no’ on authorizing the war on Iraq, and opposes the Real ID. He pointed out the danger of our fiat currency and how printing dollars from thin air hurts the poor and middle class the most and your only comment is “we’re in alot of trouble.”

    Why not do your own investigating into Dr. Paul’s life and then, if you think there’s not a desirable candidate, write another column.

    Dr. Paul is the answer to what ails this country; problem is, the mainstream media does their dead level best to pretend he doesn’t exist.

  10. Sandy Price  May 4, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    I wrote a letter to his campaign headquarters and asked about his trying to prohibit abortions. I heard him say years ago that this issue is not the authority of the federal government. If he has changed his position, as Reagan did, I will pull my support.

    I opened my web site again this morning and will start gathering information on Ron Paul and other congressmen who will stand behind him. My God, I have to work for someone or something that will clean up the mess Bush/Clinton/Bush made in the White House. I will go quite mad if I don’t.

  11. Editor  May 4, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Sandy:

    Here is Ron Paul’s official stated position on abortion that he wrote on a web site called “Jesus-is-savior.com:”

    My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.

    Does this sound like a man who thinks the government should stay out of the issue? I don’t think so. As a general rule I don’t support so called “pro-life” candidates and I certainly don’t support political hypocrites.

    –Doug

  12. Carl Nemo  May 4, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    I’m famliar with Ron Paul and his political stance on many issues. Over the years I’ve purchased some of his smaller guide booklets. I’m looking at one right now, it’s rather yellowed entitled Worlds Money, World Banking, and World Government a Special Report from “The Ron Paul Investment Letter”, no date of publication but is probably from the late 70’s, early 80’s during the last boom in the price of gold.

    A number of years ago he ran an investment company on the side that dealt in gold coins, both numismatic and bullion coins in nature. He’s for a gold standard and is anti-fiat currency which is the current standard; i.e., nations currencies float and their perceived value is based on the what the free-market traders will pay or bid for a nation’s currency in the FOREX (foreign currency exchange commodities markets). Since the currency has no intrinsic value it’s derived value can be based on a number of secondary determinants. One would be how a nation’s central bank manages it’s currency; i.e., do they run the printing presses willy nilly to prop up “perceived” economic expansion with little or no link to reality? Does the Central banker through the government treasury pay a reasonable interest rate to lenders; i.e., lenders who finance public debt based on risk vs. reward tenets? Do the elected officials of a given nation operate a national budget with fiscal discpline or do they run huge, unpayable deficits as ours? Are they strong militarily, and are able to protect the integrity of the currency and their national borders, or are they paper tigers who although possibly strong in a nuclear, high-tech sense have weakened themselves to the point that they would be seriously ineffective if they had to wage major land battles against equally armed aggressors with gravitas? So all these factors and more that I’m not going to belabor come into the equation concerning the evaluation of a nation’s currency, not including the general perceived value of a nation’s currency from the unwashed masses who also bid up it’s value based on hysteria or simply by purchasing a nations goods such in China’s case. Money migrates to where it’s treated best and the U.S. is not one of those places at this point in time. Our stock market although hovering at 13,000 has lost 50 percent of it’s value due to currency devaluation during the past few years. It’s the worst performing stock market of all the worlds publicly traded markets. Our dollar is currently tanking against all the worlds currencies both major and minor!

    One thing that’s always made investing in the U.S., almost as good as the word of God is that it’s backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States of America”. The U.S. has never defaulted on it’s public debt throughout it’s entire history which is quite a statement that few nations on earth could make claim too other than possibly Switzerland and the Nordic countries. I can’t speak for this being true in the future with a true outstanding debt somewhere in the 70 trillion dollar range! I’m not talking simply about public debt, but Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs that are either outright underfunded or unfunded for the future. These numbers are truly astronomical and unpayable especially since compound interest in involved in the repayment.

    Everything was in reasonable order until the Nam debacle. During most major wars there’s rationing and shortages in the public environment due to the need for materials to be deflected towards the war effort as in WWII, but Nam was the first of the MIC wars of adventurism waged blatantly to serve the mandates of the oil patch, Exxon, Mobile, Royal Dutch et. al. to protect the huge, both present and discovered oil reserves in SE Asia from the Commies. It was nothing more and nothing less. Back home they peddaled the “Domino Theory” and a bunch of other feelgood pap to the unwashed masses as they are now with the Iraqi debacle with such pap as “nation-building” etc. Johnson needed money badly to feed the maw of the MIC, so in addition to our main Federal taxes he instituted a 10 percent surtax to feed the war machine. He also authorized creative book-keeping/cooking. They took money from the SS Trust Fund and pitched Treasury issued IOU’s back into the strongbox promising to payback this borrowed money at some point in the future. Johnson created the “Welfare Warfare” State, a “guns and butter” economy; i.e., no rationing so no one was squirming back in hometown America. All presidents have done the same concerning the SS Trust fund and even the government pension funds including Bush. Clinton didn’t have to because the U.S. was experiencing a tech boom and the tax receipts were quite positive during his era as president. The MIC was quite long-faced during the tech era as most of their stocks cratered and became the red-haired step children of the stock market. So H.W. Bush pitched them a bone with the engineering of Gulf War I. Think not, then here’s the link. They green-lighted Saddam to attack Kuwait, then they declared a coalition response on him and the MIC made big bucks although small potatos compared to dubya’s massive feeding during recent times.
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

    Dr. Paul’s ideas on finances, the Constitution and a lot of other issues although they sound down-home etc. are not feasible. Why, simply because we are too far gone, not only as a nation, but the world itself is too far along in this globalist paradigm. If Paul were elected, he’d find himself isolated from the Congress and the Senate being able to achieve very little concerning his passe’ theories of finance and government, ending up like Jimmy Carter, simply a one term President with little to show for his tenure.

    What America needs is a consumate, wealthy businessman type who’s not beholding to the NWO, corportist agenda which has it’s roots within the Eurocrats and the Eurostocracy. Although the Europeans have joined economically they are still maintaining many if not most of their internal governmental structure that makes them individually unique. The gang we currently have in D.C. wants to to do a full wipe of America as we know it and simply turn it into a doormat nation allowing cheap labor to migrate from Central and South America or wherever else in order to set up shop in the U.S. and eventually Canada too. There’s a great leveling process in wages and per capita finances. The third worlders are being brought up and the people in the U.S. are being brought down. The theory being is that once people get hungry enough they might just get motivated to work for less wages and to become competitive again as we once were as a nation otherwise the attitude on the part of the current leadership is “adapt or perish” or socio-economic Darwinism.

    Our leadership in D.C. could care less about Old Glory our heritgage and other such feelgood nonsense. All they have in their eyes are dollar signs. So we need a leader that can work within this paradigm but knows where to draw the line and to help create legislation that helps to maintain our national integrity while protecting our borders and national interests and even our market; i.e., to establish an honest, level playing field. Most trade agreements are lobsided nightmares that end up screwing the American producer while taking care of Asian businessmen who have lined our politicians pockets with gratuities for such legislative enactment.

    So although many of you are enamoured with Ron Paul he would end up as an isolated, ineffective anomaly. He’ been in Congress before as an Independent, then for some reason he decided to hitch his political future by running as a Republican. He claimed a number of years back when he was an Independent that he was muffled by veiled threats etc. from the established forces that reside within the halls of Congress etc. Quite possibly that was true. He’s also too old. I’m 62 and I’m tired of looking at old, sallow-faced, bad-breathed, wobble-headed politicians spewing the same old, worn-out screed; i.e., a “chicken in every pot, a Ford in every garage”, all the while kissing babies on the campaign trail. Recently I saw “Billary” pulling this schtick; i.e., kissing babies and it made me want to retch. Somewhere, somehow there has to be a younger American with the brains, and the financial gravitas to blow all these losers away so there’s virtually no contest. Someone that doesn’t need the dough from the MIC or his pockets stuffed from shadowy back-door contributors, otherwise we will continue to be saddled with these chosen one’s that most if not of of us cannot stomach.

    I’ve always liked a bumper sticker that I’ve seen in recent years. “Don’t vote, it only encourages them”… :)) Carl Nemo **==

  13. Sandy Price  May 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    If he promotes the prohibition to the point of adding a constitution amendment, I wil certainly not support him. I trust your knowledge on this subject. I asked him outright in 1999 and I must have misunderstood his stand on this.

    It is apparent that I will have to locate a Democrat for my candidate. I’ve never done that but America is in big trouble and maybe a Democrat would manage to stop this rotten war and get us back to the Constitution.

    Why are individual freedoms so hard to keep clear of the politicians?

  14. T.M. Williams  May 4, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Thanks for taking the time to address this subject so thoughtfully. From what I understand of monetary history, I’m not convinced that the current paradigm of global fiat currency is going to last forever, or even very long, so I’m skeptical of the ability of a wealthy, independent type to work within that system to unwind the empire (though if any want to try, a la Perot, more power to them). And it’s true that a single person of integrity at the top of the dung heap is liable to be isolated and capable of little — but perhaps they could brake the empire’s advance, for example by not starting any more military actions, legalizing torture, indefinite detention, etc. And perhaps they might serve as an inspiration to others.

    Above all, I have to say your last line makes a very good point.

  15. Warren  May 4, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    It doesn’t matter who wins the presidency as long as he/she is a Repugnican. Not that I like Repugnicans. It’s just that we are best served by a divided government. Demoncrats will hold the congress, so we need a R president. That way a minimum of new legislation will be passed into law, and whatever gets passed has the best chance of not being too obnoxious.

    Of course, the best of all possible outcomes would be Ron Paul. But I agree he hasn’t much of a chance.

    —W—

  16. yarply  May 4, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    I don’t think so. As a general rule I don’t support so called “pro-life” candidates

    What then? You just support one’s that are pro death?

  17. yarply  May 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Out of all the people at the debate, Ron Paul seemed the ONLY genuine person there. No matter if you like him or his positions he at least seemed not to be some actor. Why else is he ignored by the mainstream media if not because he is his own man, and not bought and paid for by the “you know who’s”.
    Ron Paul. IF you are going to vote. Hell,, he is the only REAL choice, unless you only vote for the people you think will win (and not for the real/best canidate. I guess that is why we have bush in office. (What a turd)

  18. Sandy Price  May 5, 2007 at 8:19 am

    My record of voting for winners is probably so small not to even bother with. I want a President who thinks about our freedoms, choices and security. I’m tired of being manipulated by the Christian Coalition and their trying to change America into a Christian Nation.

    I was a supporter of Ross Perot and have not voted for a single winner in years. I should have learned back in 1964 that the people will vote for the candidate who makes the biggest effort to confine us in welfare.

    I belong to two separate Republican organizations: “Real Republicans” and “Republicans for Choice” but I have not voted for a Republican since 1992. I’m looking….I’m looking!

    I have known Doug Thompson long enough to trust his opinions….That is why I’m here.

  19. mrtshw  May 5, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Many of us not on life support in Arkansas suspect neither a Huckabee nor a Clinton possess the basic moral fiber or the human decency to be “Leader of the Free World “. Though both purport to hold children foremost in their hearts, their reptilian hypocrisy is clearly demonstrated by the following facts; they influenced the affairs of Arkansas for a combined 22 years and can rightly take credit for our state remaining at the bottom of indices concerning children’s health care,children’s public education, children’s household incomes. Conversely, Arkansas’ children remain among the highest in numbers which rank those suffering extreme poverty, those languishing in the nations most scandalous juvenile corrections system, those grotesquely maimed and even killed in criminally shameful psychiatric facilities , those treated in questionable medical facilities by doctors, nurses, attendants who can barely speak english.
    The MSM will focus on these cretins so endlessly, we will be so numbed we won’t care who their Corporate Puppeteers finally annoint as our next president.

  20. KayInMaine  May 5, 2007 at 9:56 am

    …that the current neocons running for the presidency chose to debate at the Reagan Library. Why? Because Reagan was the beginning of the end of our government and the GOP candidates along with George W. Bush will finish it off.

    They hate America. Why? I think it’s because they like the idea of being King of Planet Earth. *rolling eyes*

    http://www.whitenoiseinsanity.wordpress.com

  21. Sandy Price  May 5, 2007 at 10:43 am

    I go all the way back to Goldwater’s Conservative agenda which consisted of: limited government, individual freedoms and personal responsibilities. Until that time I was horribly disappointed in both the Republicans and the Democrats and found that both parties used and abused the American taxpayers.

    I learned from reading Goldwater and Ayn Rand what true freedoms were possible. I also learned that if Americans wanted freedoms they would have to educate themselves in being independent from the government. I also learned that in 1964 the American people had no desire for independence from the government.

    There would never be a balance in our government to represent the big business corporations who paid our salaries and the other side of the aisle who demanded good wages and benefits.

    The American people chose a movement so close to Socialism to be frightening in the resulting growth of our federal government. We never regained our desire for freedoms and the voters became more interested in what they could take from the government than what they could develop on their own. The federal government was too eager to supply their requests for welfare and put us all into debt.

    I soon found myself in the Libertarian Party to try to regain a balance in America. It is no longer possible as the voters do not have the education to be able to stand away from the government. I saw this in the 1960s and it became my endgame to see to it that my own kids never had to rely on any division of the federal government to exist. It meant secular private schools with an emphasis on academics. It worked for me. Even with two kids at Berkeley, they came out independent from the socialism taught in that University.

    At one time I did support Reagan for Governor as he stated clearly he was pro-choice on many subjects. When he became President I felt secure enough to sell my property and open a book store. I soon learned that D.C. put their fingerprints all over Reagan and he became just another crooked politician. He even was bought by the religious right and became pro-life much to the disgust of his daughter Maureen who until her death was a beacon of hope for all American women.

    I wish I could explain why the GOP fell on its ass the day Pat Robertson entered into the future of the Republican Party. He has been in charge for all those years and destroyed the balance that our founders had designed.

    The next step will be to destroy our free-enterprise system of government because corruption was allowed into the board rooms. I can clearly see the government setting their laws into our corporations, elections and even opening our borders to anyone who is willing to vote as Christians. This is not new but has taken over most of the European nations making them weak and unproductive. America will have a new federal police system under the Patriot’s act and those ID Cards will be filled with everything we represent. At that time I will say goodbye to the internet and these meeting places for those who will never buckle under to Big Daddy.

    I spent too much time in the 40s all the way up to this morning reading about the destruction of our civilization. I will never bow down to anyone or any political party that is willing to turn over our freedoms to the concept of a higher being. My heroes are not the Apostles but the founders of our nation.

  22. Carl Nemo  May 6, 2007 at 1:44 am

    You are quite welcome T.M. Williams. Here’s your answer as to whether fiat currency will last forever or not?! These financial elitists that run the “casino of life” virtually “own” everything that’s worth anything.

    They own the all the real estate through their banks, they own all the natural resources; i.e., minerals, timber etc. They own the utilities, they own the water supplies and if they could meter it, they own the very air we breathe, they “own” all the infrastructure.

    “We the People” ‘s of the world are nothing but debtor/slaves to them. So when the current world currency paradigm fails they will simply come up with a NWO…”Brave New World” replacement for the old ways of doing business by implementing a world based digital currency. Since everyone and anyone including many “penny-ante” billionaires will have been destroyed by the implosion of the worlds “old currency” system they will be eager to embrace whatever is proffered to them as long as they feel they get a somewhat fair shake.

    All will get an initial issuance of x-number of digital currency units deposited in their new abstract digital accounts predicated on some semblance of their prior worth and productivity as citizens of the “world”. It will simply be a “take it or leave it” proposition! You either play their game or starve and perish.

    What do these mattoids care since the politicians in the seats of every capital on earth are owned lock, stock, barrel, body and soul by these elitist mattoids. Think I’m kidding, then think again! It is their plan. There’s a good chance for it to unfold soon or somewhat into the mid 21st century but it’s coming. The young folks that are now maturing in this world could care less as long as the good life; i.e., the partying, the gadgets, the endless Mall experience is not interrupted. I think you get my drift.

    People will need to wake up to the fact they’ve “lost it all” or they manage to survive with x-number of digital credits to their new way of doing life’s financial business. There will be some trouble-spots here and there, but they will have no trouble expunging the difficulties. Our current world’s population is 6.3 billion and we are headed for about 10.5 billion by 2050. the shear world’s population size almost mandates such a system of doing business etc. I’ll be pushing up the daisies, but a “Brave New World” is a-coming!

  23. Sandy Price  May 6, 2007 at 10:54 am

    I may not accept his opinions but I do respect them. I want a free America, free from any influence whether religion or socialism. My agenda has started with anyone who wants to legislate morals is on the wrong road to freedom.

    We only have to look at the original prohibition and our war on drugs to prove the government has no place outside the Constitution. For these Republicans to threaten a Constitutional Amendment shows how emotionally they are involved in telling us all what to do and with whom.

    Give Razor his money back and I will match it with a check of my own.

  24. yarply  May 6, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    I wholeheartedly agree. Ron Paul,, what ever faults he has,,, and we ALL have some,(Doug), does appear to be sincere and honest, and his record speaks for itself. Saying that, I also agree that he would try and as you said; uphold his oath to protect and defend the constitution and the people from enemies foreign or domestic. He would repeal (or at least try to) the Patriot Acts, The Military Commissions Act, He would (again try) ending the spying plus disband the IRS. And give America back to Americans.
    Thus said, he would probably in so doing set himself up for assassination, as JFK did when he decided to be the ‘peoples’ president instead of being a puppet president controlled by the one’s who rule from behind the scene.
    But really,, with the advent of computer voting and the record of how it can be hacked, plus seeing that voting fraud is now a for sure thing, even if “we the people” voted for him in ‘mass’ it would not be a given he would be elected. Plus I really doubt he will be chosen by the GOP to head the republican position even if the people want him. There seem to be to many ways for the enemies of this country to bypass the will of the people, (sadly).
    God knows though, I hope and prey that we could at least have ONE honest man in office, even though I believe it is to late for this country.

    The reason I say it is to late for this country is we as a country are bankrupt, both morally and financially. This country and its people have lost its way,,,, made too many enemies abroad and can no longer compete with the foreign markets,, do to Big business and big banking’s control over world affairs.
    We have lost so much and to much of our industry. Which have moved over seas, south of the border, or just been plain shut down due too over regulation. But that is just my opinion and I hope I’m wrong.

  25. Victory Gin  May 6, 2007 at 3:15 pm

    First, I admit to not reading any of the comments here – went straight to the end.

    Second, I agree that, presently, anyone with the requisite knowledge and skills to be my President would choose not to get involved in the blood-letting from all sides: Republican, Democratic, and most certainly the Corporate corrupted media.

    And Third, I will put my money on Ron Paul as the one who will honestly try to get the US out of truly unnecessary foreign entanglements and return by lost freedoms from the current neo-conservative coup on MY Constitution.

  26. Sandy Price  May 6, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    but I will never vote for any man or woman who wants the abortions back in dirty motel rooms. No! that is not an option. I don’t care if Ron Paul can make it into the White House, he brings with him the horrors of the inquisitions that caused many innocent victims of the churches to be slaughtered in the streets. That group of 10 that I watched would be drooling at the chance to watch women and girls pay for their sins. Not in my America! We all have our own agendas and mine is to protect all Americans not just white Christian straight men!

  27. yarply  May 6, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Sandy Sandy Sandy,

    It is sad to say but their are many like you, that would let this country go to hell in a hand basket, just so you and people like you can protect your right to an abortion. Is that ALL that matters to you? No other issue is of importance. Because someone says they are personally against abortion, you would vote for a Hitler instead, because he is for it? Hitler was Pro-choice also you know. Yep had an abortion program you would not believe.
    Come now lets be honest,, can we do that? Did Ron Paul even suggest putting abortions back in dirty motel rooms?, And as president he would have no power to due so anyhow. Presidents do not write laws, they either sign bills into law or veto the approved bills, keeping them from becoming law.

    You wrote; he brings with him the horrors of the inquisitions that caused many innocent victims of the churches to be slaughtered in the streets.
    Come now listen to yourself. Do you REALLY believe this? And if so where do you come up with this rational?
    No. It sounds to me that you are fear mongering
    because you perceive (rightly or wrongly) that your right to an abortion may be in danger.
    I know “that” IS the most important thing to you.
    The right to kill unwanted babies

  28. Razor  May 4, 2007 at 9:17 am

    Can’t add anything to your observation Doug. Real fine lot to choose from,eh.

  29. Steve Horn  May 4, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Doug –

    There are no more political debates – at least not at the national level. Most of the candidates wouldn’t do well in a true debate format like those many of us participated in during our high school and college years. They required preparation, knowledge and the ability to create a well crafted answer to ones opponent. The current crop just seems to be capable of spewing portions of their position statements, often at inappropriate moments.

    “Illegal and immoral war” – I take issue with the use of the word immoral. If one holds Judeo/Christian/Islamic values to heart then no war can be moral – as killing is wrong. I prefer unethical to immoral, as the war was based on manipulated and manufactured pseudo-facts, much the way an unethical used car salesman would put saw dust into a transmission to mask the sounds of impending failure.

    Political parties – so long as we cling to the two party system and fail to recognize third party candidates the situation in our nation will not improve. Both parties are so centrist that there is little if any distinction once you peel back a bit of the colorful wrapping paper in which they’re presented.

    Bob Dylan once penned “to live outside the law you must be honest” – the current crop of politicians have proven that, at least in modern context, for politicians, Dylan was mistaken.

    Peace

    Steve

  30. Doubtom  May 4, 2007 at 11:12 am

    You’re dead wrong Steve! There’s not one candidate in the current race from either party that could stand up to Nader in a debate. The elite presidential commission knows that and will do their best to exclude him as always and to protect the two-party system from any encroachment by third party cnadidates. We need to wrest control of the debates away from this unelected bunch of elites.

    We were much better served when the debates were governed by the Women Voters.

  31. Sandy Price  May 4, 2007 at 9:43 am

    Somewhere, somehow, at some time there must be a human being who can dig up some of the old American values that are found in both parties. We have to keep our hopes up!

    I guess I was very impressed in 1992 when the same problems were facing the same American citizens and a strange voice blasted us back to reality. That was H. Ross Perot. He gave us hell! How dare we give up our values to any individual representing a failed political party? He cleaned us up with new ideas of trade, of stomping out our debts and individual participation in all our elections. We must not forget that Perot ended up with 12 million votes even after he quit.

    There is nobody at this time who has the spine to describe our failures and then follow up with corrections. There is nobody who knows and understands how much damage the GOP has inflicted on our federal government. The Democrats could have controlled much of this GOP undercurrent of taking control over the people. They chose to ignore just about every move that the Bush Administration pulled on all of us.

    There is no balance possible in our current Congress. There must be an Independent who knows and understand the U.S. Constitution and who can sell it to the voters.

    The current agenda found in both parties weighs too much for the American people. Both parties represent more federal control than many want. We all have to decide how much government control we want.

    Orwell’s 1984 showed us what we don’t want! Why have we followed that agenda and brought us to that state? We need a cheer leader for freedoms and we need him/her immediately.

    Is there still a growing group who wants the “Campaign for our America?” Can we work as a team to bring this campaign to a strong action group?

  32. neondesert  May 4, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    As utopian as that sounds, any independent candidate (even if one COULD get elected to office) would have absolutely no sway over the government. Policy is made by gangs of bureaucrats, not by bright, sensible individuals. An independent has little to no hope of opposing the two major parties and their corporate sugar daddies.

    We know that the best and brightest go to private industry because of the money and security, so expecting to have one or two pop up in the political arena is mostly fantasy. We’ve reached the point where we’d be happy to replace “best” with “competent”. Sadly, as Doug points out, even the specter of that option seems to be fading.

  33. bryan mcclellan  May 4, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Why no comment about Ron Paul ? He clearly won every talking point and no mention of him at all, here or on any of the hack networks but cnn ,and they are passing off the figures of they’re own poll where he was put at 40% approval over all the other liars they trotted out for inspection..Matthews and Olberman lost a fan last night, what a pair of HACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way Doug ,have you even heard of the only one who openly challenged the bushheads on the war. RON PAUL rep/ Texas

  34. AustinRanter  May 4, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Forgive me, but this is the 3rd Thread I’ve posted the following:

    Doug,

    My personal take on the debate is:

    The old GOP has now morphed into the Republican Christian Taliban. They want to bring Jesus into the White House and central government to help them control the wayward sexual behaviors of women so they can ultimately eliminate the abortion problem. Eventually, they’ll have the death penalty passed through the Christian Taliban Supreme Court for all women who fail in their duties to be subservient to men.

  35. bryan mcclellan  May 4, 2007 at 10:41 am

    I be neither dem or rep,just looking for one honest voice in the forest of lies that is politics..

  36. SnowCrash7  May 4, 2007 at 10:46 am

    I think our system of nominating and electing a President is broken. One need only look at our last two presidents to see that. Clinton, in my view, represented the absolute worse elements of our generation. The self absorption, the massive corruption and scandals that ranged from enabling Red China to upgrade their armaments in exchange for illegal campaign donations, through tainted blood collections in his prisons in Arkansas, to his involvement in Mena etc. Its an endless list.
    He was succeeded by a half-bright dry drunk, that considers the Constitution nothing but a ‘g**damned piece of paper’. Acting as a tool of the mega corporations and their desire for cheap labor, he deliberately leaves our borders wide open to terrorists, does his best to export every job he can overseas, is tearing our military apart on a fool’s errand that is only serving to motivate, recruit and train Islamic terrorists. His actions have made this country far LESS safe while his supporters claim to ‘support our troops’. What nonsense.
    Jefferson said that a little revolution every now and then is a good thing. I agree. And feel that it is going to take a populist ticket that can transcend now irrelevant labels (Bush is a conservative???) and unite folks rather than divide and conquer.
    The trouble is that the system does not enable success on the part of those who are not already bought and paid for by big business.

  37. Doubtom  May 4, 2007 at 11:21 am

    –I’ve seen in a while Snowcrash7 ,,now for the answers!

    Private money out of our politics PERIOD! With severe penalties for transgressors!

    Open up the primaries to all parties. There is nothing sacred or necessary about having only two parties.

    Throw out ALL lobbyists!

    Free air time for ALL candidates! We own the
    airways!

    Failing in the above, get that revolution going!

  38. Razor  May 4, 2007 at 10:59 am

    Bryan is right about Ron Paul. Ron Paul IS the ONLY HONEST politician in the running. His record proves it. No scandals haunt him.

    He believes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not to be revised and he is truly sincere. The problem is he hasn’t joined the insider club of bribe takers and whore mongers so he doen’t get the media spotlight. It seems crooks, liars, and cheaters are only the ones who get attention. Media is the controller of the mass mind in America

  39. Boudicca  May 4, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone; the people themselves are its only safe depositories.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Razor is right – Ron Paul is the only honest politician. He’s about the only member of Congress who has consistently voted against the war and its funding. The Dems are no more than closet neocons. Ron Paul has voted against the Patriot Act. Also, as the only constitutional candidate in the race, Ron Paul is the ultimate defender of liberty. Congress is worthless and nearly everyone of these rogues should be voted out of office. The crime of outsourcing its war making authority to Bush is no less than high treason. Congress made Bush the criminal that he is because without Congress, Bush couldn’t be waging wars across the globe.

    Ron Paul should be ever constitution lovers candidate, every Libertarian’s candidate and the candidate of choice for most liberals. Without more Ron Pauls in elected office, we will continue to morph toward a totalitarian police state.

  40. deansson  May 4, 2007 at 11:09 am

    Let me adapt it to:

    Eeny meeny, bolie weavil.
    Which one is the lesser evil?

  41. Steve Horn  May 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Perhaps it’s the fact that it’s Friday – but you’re expressing apparent disagreement with me while restating my point – in the current crop of political candidates – major party if you will (as we never hear from the non-majors, do we?) there is no debate. There is only grandstanding and stumping –

    What passes for “debate” in our current political world is pathetic. “how would yu feel if R-V-W was overturned” …. that’s not a debate question – that’s an opinion (how would you feel cannot be supported by emperical evidence, can it?) These are contrived opportunities afforded the major candidates to cement their symbiotic relationship with the news media – period.

    So I stand by my original comment regarding debate – there is no political debate currently amongst the major party candidates.

    Steve

  42. Steve Horn  May 4, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Why are the two parties so sacred? Why are the held in such reverence and awe? Because they attract money – plain and simple – and with that money they pound away at the carriers of new ideas or old ethics and drive them into the background.

    If we can somehow re-establish a sense of duty to country in this nation of ours, rather than a sense of reverence to the almighty buck, if we can clobber the PAC’s, the corporate funding, the “sub-government” that provides the endorsement and funding for the bozo’s we get in office, then the playing field would be equalized – actually – the intellectually gifted and ethically based would have a distinct advantage over the talking heads we’re now presented with.

    Politics wasn’t always as filthy in America as it is today – and it doesn’t need to be even worse tomorrow – but change has to come.

    The problem is – as I see it – that the politcians currently in office (some, apparently, with lifetime appointments) are the ones responsible for making the changes – and who’s going to enact legislation that will lead to their own unemployment? Perhaps a selfless patriot who puts the interest of their nation ahead of themselves – but it’s been a long time since someone of that mettle has cast their shadow on the door of a political office –

    Steve

  43. Sandy Price  May 6, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Another conservative President will have the ability to put in one or two more conservative Justices. That would put the religous right on top of all our decisions and that would be a disaster.

    In the 40s, 50s, and 60s I lost many close friends who could not afford to fly to Europe for their abortions. Most of the Hollywood and Beverly Hills girls had that ability and they used it. One of my classmates from highschool had 4 children and just before her fifth was due she had a killer stroke. Her father, a doctor, had requested that she be given an abortion and the courts turned her down. Both baby and mother died leaving 4 children without their mother. This should never happen in America. It is a serious question that cannot be left up to a bunch of male Christians.

    All individual freedoms are important to me and I take them one at a time. You cannot label me as wanting to kill babies but I wear the label of giving women the final choice of how many children she can raise with success.

    I am not the one focusing on abortions; it is the Conservatives who have made an issue of this for years and will lose an election over the fight. I am basically a Republican but since they have been under the influence of Pat Robertson, I have no choice but to leave the party. This is not the only issue on their list and gambling, prostitution, birth control and divorce are all waiting in line.

  44. yarply  May 6, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    And yet. You are so sure, that with all the issues in this country, that Ron Paul would focus on this one issue when their are a multitude of issues to address or that any of the justices now serving would be stepping down or retiring so he could replace them? Supreme court Justices serve for life or until they decide to retire, and though the president chooses the nominees, they still have to be confirmed by both houses. I am not trying so much to change your mind on who to vote for, but to point out that you may be worrying about something which the president may not really be in a position to do anything about.

    Even though I have to state for myself, abortion rights is a rather soulless issue when, in “most” but not all cases, other options are better served. I agree that in the case of a mothers life being in jeopardy that the case for abortion must be an option, which the mother must have, but to just abort babies because you do not want it, and most abortions are of this kind whether you wish to admit it or not, is both heartless and cruel considering that 1. millions of people who are childless would almost die for the ability to adopt someone Else’s unwanted child, and 2. Of all the lives to be extinguished the most innocent and helpless would be killed for convenience or for perceived lack of worth by the potential mother. How many children have been exterminated which when raised to adulthood may have been the one to be destined to cure cancer or be the next Rembrandt. Its sad that so many are so callous and selfish, that they would deprive the world of the potential locked up in each child whose life was destroyed because of the excuse I don’t want him or her. Well others may NOT want that child but I bet someone does, who could, and would, love that child, and nurture it, with thoughts of love and compassion.

    When it’s all said and done, you, and I, and everyone else, has to be able to look back at their lives and not feel shame for a wrong decision or belief that they later must admit to being wrong about, which caused others grief and misery and harm, and if you feel comfy with what goes on in an abortion clinic,,, and most importantly, WHY it is going on, then that is your decision.

  45. Sandy Price  May 7, 2007 at 7:01 am

    but I have been actively working for American freedoms since 1946 when the war was over and I was campaigning for Republican candidates. I had those agenda items installed in my brain long before they changed to represent something totally foreign. In 1953 I was legally able to vote at 21 and I have never missed a local or federal election in all that time.

    I saw American values start to shrink due to the American voters wanting more from the government than it was legally, constitutionally possible.

    Ron Paul is too late. He would be a shoo in as a Republican except the party has changed into a desire for federal control over all American citizens. There has been a gradual disintegration of freedoms based on a disintegration of morals that can only be corrected in the family home and the schools.

    D.C. is great at adding icing to an old worn out cake. It is time to throw it all out and start with a clean oven. At this point Ron Paul wants to start with more icing when the cake is rotting.

    I’ve been all over the internet since 1993 and have run into the knowledge that Americans want only a quick fix. We have been voting for the lesser of two evils and it is time we stopped.

    My number one agenda item has always been individual freedoms. I’ve listed them, discussed them here and on easily 100 other sites. I will not throw any category of Americans out as not worthy of complete freedoms. Freedoms are not compromised in my brain.

    I’ve also learned that not all owners of these political sites can be trusted. Doug Thompson can be trusted as having the ability to separate the phonies from the real thing. Time and time again he has been proven right. The times he was wrong he was quick to admit it and state a change of opinion. Nobody knows D.C. as well as Doug.

    I too have people in the inner circle of D.C. and not even they can recognize the hypocrisy as quickly as Doug. He offers the news, the facts and the opinions of all of us. We all don’t agree and we aren’t supposed to.

    Where else can we go where there is no political agenda thrown at us from the management? You want a Social Conservative point of view, go to Free Republic. You want a socialistic Liberal point of view go to Democrats Underground. Google your political desires and you will find your one-sided positions and all others banned.

    Or you can stick it out on CHB and have it all open and discussed. I for one want to know your opinions because I am still learning.

Comments are closed.