?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Right-Wing Free (aka Conservative-Free)'s Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Right-Wing Free (aka Conservative-Free)'s LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Friday, December 11th, 2009
12:43 pm
[capthek]
Ted Rall again annoys me.
Not only is his article inexact, but sadly his fatalism on the climate is catching on. I have a couple of quotes below. As far as the first one, saying just "the polar ice cap" is wrong as he is talking about the arctic in general and not antarctica. The ice cap in both antarctica and greenland are predicted to take much longer than the area of ice in the arctic that only covers water rather than land.

Anywho, my other primary point is that no, people do not assume that if we cut emissions everything will fix itself. Very many scientists believe that we must act to take carbon out of the atmosphere in addition to cuts in emissions. In fact, if you took carbon out at a quick rate you would not even have to cut emissions. How could we do this? You could seed large parts of the ocean with little life and huge algae blooms would absorb carbon. You could also simply pump carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere and trap it in many ways, under ground, or in organic structures. And don't even get me started on advanced nanotechnology.

You see, the reason Rall annoys me so much is that his kind of discourse convinces people who think that climate change is happening and something should be done into the same camp as the deniers. If Ralls discourse wins, then nobody does nothing. Anyway, those quotes are below:

"For example, the polar ice cap is doomed. Summer ice will vanish entirely within 20 years; winter ice will be gone by 2085."

"Both sides of the "debate" are liars."
"Of course, the only sane action is to pretend otherwise and enact radical change that might/might have saved the earth. The human race is probably destined for extinction. But we might as well be courteous on the way out...and stop BSing about our chances."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/giveahootbutwerestilldoomed;_ylt=AmrvBUMP0zz3XXPvE3Tt5Nphr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTM0bG10aGYxBGFzc2V0A3VjcnUvMjAwOTEyMTEvZ2l2ZWFob290YnV0d2VyZXN0aWxsZG9vbWVkBHBvcwMxOQRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNnaXZlYWhvb3RidXQ-
Sunday, August 30th, 2009
2:50 pm
[dreamsofpaprika]
Is America Truly the ''Land of the Free''?

I read a few articls over the past decade about tragedis in America and I soley relaize that, as many times as Americans think this stuff only happens in foreign countries and third-world countries, they're worng.

They say
America is the ‘’Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,’’ but is it really? What is so free about a land where people are killed? There are many beings alike whose lives become daily races for survival. Furthermore, the tragedies more often occur within their own communities. Many of their families and friends died of rape and street shootings. These are all ruthless acts of senseless violence committed out of pure ignorance. I can somehow relate my own life and experiences to these people’s stories. These human’s countries were all at war when these incidents occurred, however, my country is not. (Or is it?)

 

A few years ago in the fall of 2003, a close and good friend of mine was mysteriously abducted while on her way to school. Her presence had gone missing for several weeks until her body was finally found neglected in the outskirts of the desert robbed and naked. It was concluded by the police department that she was a victim of rape. It was on October 8, 2003, a date worth remembering. To this very day, it still hurts when I think about her death. That date will forever haunt me until the day death transpires.

 

The one person who I cared about more than anyone in this world died a senseless death at such a young and innocent age. Even more surprisingly, the death of my friend was not recognized in the papers. Why? Doesn’t anyone care? Hell! I care! My friend’s family care also, but now her parents are scarred for life because they’ll never see or hear their daughter again. Sometimes I feel like taking my guardian’s gun and seeking revenge on whomever raped and killed my friend, but what would that prove? Would it prove how much I cared about her? Would it prove that I stuck up for her? No! The only thing that it would prove is how stupid I am. Nevertheless, I am not stupid…

 

I can easily relate to the children’s and adult’s stories and I know they’ve all been through situations similar to my own. Their experiences truly moved me and surprisingly enough, made me cry (and I am not the type of person who usually cries). After all of this has happened to me (and much more has happened to me than just this) and other individuals now I cannot help to wonder, is the world nothing but a living nightmare for us human beings? Is the world truly nothing more than a great black pit trapped at the bottom of the universe where the morals of it all are not worth what a pig could spit and the vermin of society inhabit it? At first, I wondered where God was in the midst of this ‘’undeclared war’’ on this hell of an Earth. Now, I have my answer: the one thing, on which we can all agree, among all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and the poor. God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor playhouse. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them.

 

Now that I have read this article, I am educated on what is happening all over the world even as we speak. I would now like the opportunity to educate other people on what is happening in my ‘’America’’ because until this ‘’undeclared war’’ has ended, I am not free and neither is anyone else! War has nothing to do with being human or humanity itself. War is inhuman!

 



Current Mood: busy
Friday, February 6th, 2009
7:27 am
[capthek]

Great achievements in American socialism

A slide show of two dozen excellent things the federal government bought with your money.

By Mark Schone


Photo Courtesy the Library of Congress

View a slide show of the greatest achievements of American socialism.

Feb. 6, 2009 | Brave souls named Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh have raised the alarm: Socialism will soon be loosed upon the land. What is this "socialism" of which they -- and Malkin, McCain and Morris -- warn? Socialism is apparently what is created when a president you do not like spends money on things of which you do not approve.

Since the collapse of the economy and the election of Barack Obama, the American right has been engaged in a two-front ideological battle. Conservatives are fighting to prevent Democrats from spending America out of the current economic predicament, because it has long been a conservative article of faith that massive government investment in jobs and infrastructure does not work. But pressing that argument about the present also means looking backward, and trying to rewrite the history of the 1930s, when nearly everyone except conservative ideologues agrees that a huge Keynesian jolt to the economy did work.

Rather than publish another essay, though there have been some fine ones lately, about just what really happened during America's last episode of so-called socialism, we've opted to go to the visual record. As Marshall Auerback noted, in the process of modernizing the rural South and upgrading the infrastructure of America's largest cities, President Roosevelt's New Deal left behind a durable, physical and very visible legacy of schools and hospitals -- even aircraft carriers. (We'll leave discussion of Social Security and unemployment insurance for another time.) The following slide show gives a small sampling of the bricks-and-mortar achievements of red, white and blue "socialism."

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009
11:25 pm
[capthek]
Saturday, January 10th, 2009
4:00 pm
[capthek]
OK guys, help me understand why conservatives hate Al Franken so much.
It's not because he won this election:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/01/09/franken/
Because it was before that, and Franken is not the only guy to write books bashing the right. Why do people outside of Minnesota even care? Full disclosure, I think he is great! But nobody seems to agree with me : (


GOP sees Franken as top public enemy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/17233;_ylt=AisO9kQ9upwawPSFt80gC6Jhr7sF

In this Nov. 4, 2008 file photo, Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken shakes AP – In this Nov. 4, 2008 file photo, Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken shakes hands with supporters …

With only a longshot court appeal standing in the way of Democrat Al Franken’s election to the Senate, Republicans are gritting their teeth and bracing for the arrival of a new senator whose every utterance will sound like nails on a chalkboard to them.

While Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has filed suit to contest the results of a disputed recount process that turned his narrow lead into a 225-vote deficit, his likely defeat stands to turn Franken, the polarizing former “Saturday Night Live” writer, into the senator who launched a thousand direct mail fundraising appeals.

“I don’t know if we’ve ever had an opponent who is so disliked by Republicans as Al Franken,” said Minnesota Republican Party Chair Ron Carey, who cautioned that Coleman’s election challenge could still turn the results back his way. “It’s one thing to lose to an honorable opponent, but Al Franken is not considered an honorable opponent by Minnesota Republicans.”

Marty Seifert, the Republican leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives, said Franken’s long record of antagonizing conservatives would make it difficult for him to connect with voters who supported Coleman.

“It’s going to be hard for Franken to be very effective with any Republicans, in terms of having any credibility with us, just because he’s been so nasty in the past,” Seifert said. “He certainly has callous and very partisan behavior in the past that is beyond the pale.”

According to Carleton College political scientist Steven Schier, Franken’s record as a “flamboyant and aggressive partisan” would make him ripe for criticism back home.

“I think it’s impossible to overstate the hostility Minnesota Republicans feel toward Al Franken,” Schier said. “He will be a very useful fundraising tool.”
Read more...Collapse )
Friday, December 19th, 2008
3:00 pm
[capthek]
I am so happy about this, why is it that nobody seems as excited as I am about Frankens victory???
Franken Senate Victory Projected
December 18, 2008 07:57 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/frankens-senate-victory-c_n_152241.html

Democratic challenger Al Franken finds himself on the cusp of winning a seat in the United States Senate after Minnesota's canvassing board awarded him a host of challenged votes during deliberations on Thursday.

As of 8PM ET, the Minneapolis Star Tribune projected that Franken would finish the recount process with a lead of 89 votes, positioning him to become the 59th senator caucusing with Democrats in the upcoming Congress.
Read more...Collapse )
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008
3:30 pm
[saintless]
another Bush appointee guilty of hackery
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin ignored his responsibilities as head of the regulatory body and abused his power, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

Over the course of his tenure, Martin manipulated and withheld information from the other FCC commissioners and from Congress, neglected his statutory responsibilities to produce certain information to Congress, and ignored evidence that certain national communications programs were being grossly mismanaged, according to the report issued by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, titled "Deception and Distrust: The Federal Communications Commission Under Chairman Kevin J. Martin." (PDF)

source: cnet

The AP write up is available as well, but cnet did a much better job (IMO).
Friday, December 5th, 2008
2:13 am
[saintless]
2:13
Think Progress



Q: What about the chief of British intelligence saying you were going to fix the facts around the politics?

PERINO: I think that that’s been debunked.
Thomas quickly countered, “It’s never been been debunked.” Caught off guard, Perino admitted that she was the one who “debunked” it:

Q: It’s never been debunked.

PERINO: Well, it’s been debunked by me.

Q: Good for you.

PERINO: Good for me.



cross-posted in liberal_talk
Friday, November 14th, 2008
11:08 pm
[saintless]
Thursday, November 13th, 2008
3:38 am
[rechan]
So, Liebermann?
What should we do with Liebermann? Kick him out of the caucus? Tear him out of his chairmanship?

Personally, I think he should have his ass nailed to the wall, and force-feed him some crow. It irks me that he's being allowed to have some say here, claiming he'll bolt if he loses his chairmanship.

The problem is that we need every vote in the Senate right now. If we stomp Liebermann, he's either going to 1) resign, and Connecticut's Republican governor will put a Republican in Liebermann's seat, thus we lose that vote indefinitely, or 2) Bitter Joe will seek revenge every opportunity.

If we do nothing, I predict Joe will continue to use the pulpit. For instance, as Chairman of the Homeland Security/Government somethingorother Committee, Liebermann opted to not investigate Katrina and Blackwater shootings in Iraq, where his counterpart in the House, Waxmann, was for investigations.

More troubling is this collection of information on Liebermann's backslide from progressive views, the way he's behaved over the last few years.

What I would like to see happen, nailing him to the wall is not the ideal solution, to take his chairmanship away and put him somewhere he can do some good. Liebermann apparently feels very strongly (and progressively) about technology and the environment. So putting him as a chairman of one of those committees would be useful. But as I pointed out above with regards to the backslide from progressive stances, it may be too late.
Wednesday, November 12th, 2008
3:07 pm
[capthek]
Go to the link for further links
(these guys came out with a great movie called "the yes men" a few years ago that is very funny and very leftie)

November 12, 2008, 9:39 am
Liberal Pranksters Hand Out Times Spoof
By Sewell Chan
A fake copy of The Times was being handed out to commuters at subway stations in the city this morning.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/pranksters-spoof-the-times/?emc=eta1
Updated, 11:20 a.m. | Sorry, folks, the paper isn’t free. And the Iraq war isn’t over, at least not yet.

In an elaborate hoax, pranksters distributed thousands of free copies of a spoof edition of The New York Times on Wednesday morning at busy subway stations around the city, including Grand Central Terminal, Washington and Union Squares, the 14th and 23rd Street stations along Eighth Avenue, and Pacific Street in Brooklyn, among others.

The spurious 14-page papers — with a headline “IRAQ WAR ENDS” — surprised commuters, many of whom took the free copies thinking they were legitimate.

The paper is dated July 4, 2009, and imagines a liberal utopia of national health care, a rebuilt economy, progressive taxation, a national oil fund to study climate change, and other goals of progressive politics.

The hoax was accompanied by a Web site that mimics the look of The Times’s real Web site. A page of the spoof site contained links to dozens of progressive organizations, which were also listed in the print edition.
Read more...Collapse )
8:07 am
[rechan]
I haven't seen a lot of topics in this community to really debate about with regards to the innards of the Left, so.

Obama is proposing to bail out the Auto industry (Ford, GM and someone else I forget). Should we?

I'm of the opinion that if a business fails, let it die. Especially big businesses.

On the other hand, according to Countdown, 1 in 10 American jobs are tied to the auto industry. And that, IIRC, if one of the auto makers went under, we'd lose 2.5 million jobs. Clearly, this would take a huge hit to our economy.

In addition, Obama's belief is that if the automakers are encouraged to produce green, they can be a launch pad for an innovation, or something like that.
12:03 am
[saintless]
David Brooks on the war within the GOP
David Brooks: The right will rise again
But not as long as the Traditionalists stand in the way
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

It's only been a week since the defeat, but the battle lines have already been drawn in the fight over the future of conservatism. In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the GOP should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the most prominent voices in the Traditionalist camp, but there is also the alliance of Old Guard institutions.

If you would like to continue reading why the Democrats are going to be in charge for a while...Collapse )
Tuesday, November 11th, 2008
6:54 pm
[capthek]
This guy is likely to be the new RNC leader?
This seems just like nominating Palin for VP, they think people are going to support him just because he is black? And they tried to say Obama never accomplished anything, have you seen Steele's accomplishments? I mean, unless you watch foxnews you probably never even heard of him before.

Steele Likely to Seek RNC Leadership Post
The former Maryland lieutenant governor is considering a run for the chairmanship of the Republican Party, a source close to the situation told FOX News.
By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com

Tuesday, November 11, 2008
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/11/steele-likely-seek-rnc-leadership-post/

Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, has decided to run for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee and is in talks with Newt Gingrich to win the former House speaker's endorsement, FOX News learned Tuesday.
Read more...Collapse )
11:59 am
[capthek]
One of the reasons Obama won is because we are in fact a center-left (not right) nation.
A GOP Bridge to Nowhere
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111002481.html
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, November 11, 2008; Page A19

I could make the argument that all is not lost for the Republican Party -- that last Tuesday's across-the-board defeat wasn't an unmitigated disaster. But it would be a pretty dumb argument, and I doubt many readers would take it seriously. The truth is that the Grand Old Party is on a Bridge to Nowhere and may have great difficulty changing course.

The essential problem is that changing course will require turning around and marching, if not sprinting, in the opposite direction. At least initially, this doesn't look like something enough Republicans are willing to do.

What we're hearing instead from Republican politicians, pollsters and pundits is reassurance that the United States is a "center-right nation" with an innate distrust of progressive policies. The problem, these soothing voices say, is that under George W. Bush the GOP strayed from its basic philosophy of limited government and adopted the big-spending habits of the Democrats. Republicans need to rediscover their bedrock principles, this theory goes, and after a few years of rule by Barack Obama and his Democratic enablers on Capitol Hill, voters will come running home to papa.

So much is wrong with this analysis that it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start with the basic premise, that of a center-right American polity. To the extent that such a vague label has any real meaning, that may once have been the case. But if ours were a center-right electorate now, one imagines it might have been kinder to a center-right politician such as John McCain.
Read more...Collapse )
Monday, November 10th, 2008
3:13 pm
[capthek]
Just a little something to think about...
Could Just 4% of the Wall Street Bailout End World Hunger?
World hunger seems like one of those grand unsolvable problems – the perennial favorite wish of beauty pageant queens. The truth is, it's not unsolvable at all.
http://www.ecosalon.com/title/Could_Just_4_of_the_Wall_Street_Bailout_End_World_Hunger
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity. (Severe hunger afflicts 862 million people annually.)

$30 billion sounds like a lot of money, but considering we've just bailed out Wall Street to the tune of nearly a trillion, it's trifling. After I did a little digging, all I could think was...really? $30 billion is all we need to end world hunger? That's it? I thought such a major goal would require some unreachable, vast sum. Here are six things I learned we're doing with that money instead.

Global military and arms trade expenditures hit high at about $1 trillion annually. Approximately $540 billion is spent by the United States alone. (I don't mean to single out defense here, but...wow!)

The United States Department of Energy spends $23.4 billion yearly just to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.
Read more...Collapse )
Saturday, November 8th, 2008
4:54 pm
[saintless]
populist rhetoric
The Wall Street Journal
November 8, 2008

The Perils of 'Populist Chic'
What the rise of Sarah Palin and populism means for the conservative intellectual tradition.
By MARK LILLA


Finita la commedia. Many things ended on Tuesday evening when Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, and depending on how you voted you are either celebrating or mourning this weekend. But no matter what our political affiliations, we should all -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- be toasting the return of Governor Sarah Palin to Juneau, Alaska.

The Palin farce is already the stuff of legend. For a generation at least it is sure to keep presidential historians and late-night comedians in gainful employment, which is no small thing. But it would be a pity if laughter drowned out serious reflection about this bizarre episode. As Jane Mayer reported recently in the New Yorker ("The Insiders," Oct. 27, 2008), John McCain's choice was not a fluke, or a senior moment, or an act of desperation. It was the result of a long campaign by influential conservative intellectuals to find a young, populist leader to whom they might hitch their wagons in the future.

continuedCollapse )
3:07 pm
[hey_its_michael]
New community
Hey all --

Where rightwing_free is a community for only those of us left-of-center, there is a new community for the discussion of liberal politics for ANYONE. telemann, has started a new community called liberal_talk, which is a place where liberals, centrists and conservatives alike can gather to post articles, opinion pieces, etc., and discuss every political issue under the sun.

This is a particularly good thing because there have been growing annoyances with the community to which I was a moderator -- liberal. I will likely be leaving that community because, as many liberals are starting to feel, the moderation of a liberal discussion community should be maintained by, well, a liberal (or at least not a conservative).

Anyhow, ANYONE who is interested, and capable of having reasoned discussion, no matter your political affiliation or nationality, feel free to JOIN! :o)
Thursday, November 6th, 2008
1:39 pm
[capthek]
The conservative media keep on trying to say we are a center-right nation...
Most Americans are not conservative
Don't believe the mainstream media:

According to the Pew Center's extensive national survey, released well before this endless election got under way, roughly 70 percent of respondents believe that the government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can't take care of themselves." Two-thirds (66 percent)--including most of those who say they would prefer a smaller government (57 percent)--support government-funded health insurance for all citizens. Most also regard the nation's corporations as too powerful, while nearly two-thirds (65 percent) say corporate profits are too high--about the same number who say "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person" (68 percent). When it comes to the environment, a large majority (83 percent) back stricter laws and regulations, while 69 percent agree "we should put more emphasis on fuel conservation than on developing new oil supplies" and 60 percent say they would "be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081117/alterman

Usually if people are asked if they are liberal or conservative they will say conservative a majority of the time because the word liberal has come to mean someone who is all permissive or anything. I prefer the term progressive because it indicates the believe that those who have more should also convey a greater support for our nation with a progressive tax system, but it also appeals to my inner technophile who is a great believer in technological progress and funding the sciences.

What do you think? Should we try to rehabilitate the term liberal towards its 60s definition, or should we leave that to that generation and stick with the newly popular "progressive" term to label those on the left?

straight out geekyness below:
Read more...Collapse )
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008
6:25 pm
[capthek]
Many people are asking, how did we win? Demographics, it's all about changing American demographics
Back to the Future
The re-emergence of the emerging Democratic majority.
John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira | June 19, 2007 (check out that date)
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=back_to_the_future061807

As conservative Republicans tell the tale, the 2006 election was merely a referendum on the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans and on the Republican congressional scandals. The contest, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, "was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other." Others insist that demographic trends continue to favor the Republicans. Seeing 2006 as an anomaly, political analyst Michael Barone argued that population growth patterns favor Republican-leaning areas in the interior of the country rather than Democratic-leaning areas on the coasts.

We take a different view: that this election signals the end of a fleeting Republican revival, prompted by the Bush administration's response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the return to political and demographic trends that were leading to a Democratic and center-left majority in the United States. In 2006 the turn to the Democrats went well beyond those offices directly concerned with the war in Iraq or affected by congressional scandals. While Democrats picked up 30 House seats and six Senate seats, they also won six governorships, netted 321 state legislative seats, and recaptured legislative chambers in eight states. That's the kind of sweep that Republicans enjoyed in 1994, which led to Republican control of Congress and of the nation's statehouses for the remainder of the decade.

Just as important as these victories is who voted for Democrats in 2006. With few exceptions, the groups were exactly those that had begun trending Democratic in the 1990s and had contributed to Al Gore's popular-vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000. These groups, which we described in our 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, included women, professionals, and minorities. But in 2006 they also included two groups our book slighted or ignored altogether: younger voters (those born after 1977) and independents. These voters can generally be expected to continue backing Democrats.
Read more...Collapse )
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com