Seriously!?!?

Today the GOP decided to invoke a little know rule in the Senate that states that committees can only meet while the chamber is in session without unanimous consent of all members. Without unanimous consent committees are only allowed to meet for two hours after the start of business. Well, the GOP in retaliation for getting smacked around on health care reform had decided to withhold said consent....this the grade school equivalent of "I'm not getting my way, so I'm going to take my ball and go home!" Since when does the Senate or the government as a whole for that matter, operate like kids on a playground. These people are elected and sent to Washington BY the People, to do what is best FOR the People..but it seems lately that since the Republican party can't come to grips with the fact that they are no longer the majority. So, they have reverted to grade school tactics.

It's a sad commentary of the state of American politics. I had high hopes that we as a country could come together and get somethings done that have needed to the be done for a long time. I had really hoped that we could move past our problems as individuals and act for the good of the group. Most importantly I had really hoped that we would do things to bring about a more favorable standing in the eyes of the world. But alas I was wrong. The political parties in this country keep continuing to bicker back and forth like school children and the we continue to be a laughing stock to the international community. Besides being embarrassing, this situation holds other draw backs and potential hazards. Namely, it makes us look weak! How are we supposed to be the "leader of the free world" if we can't come together and get anything done. The party of "no" needs to suck it up and realize that they LOST! Get over it, we have way too many problems in this country to have to worry about your ego.

"War on Terror"

So, I have a question...one that no one has seemed to have answered yet. What does "victory" in the "War on Terror" look like? Anyone?? I'll tell you why no one can answer it...because there is no answer. The "War on Terror" is an abstract idea, there is no way that you can get rid of terrorism in the world by firing bullets or dropping bombs. Why? Because you are fighting an idea and you can't kill an idea. Al Qeada is a cult, it is a system of ideas used to pervert Islam. In order to have some sort of "victory" you have to get rid of the catalyst that encourages perfectly normal twenty-somethings to want to blow themselves up. Which is not to try and kill them, that will only strengthen their resolve. They picked a fight that they wanted, because when we drop bombs on them then they can recruit more members...they are like a drum..the harder you hit them the louder they will become...to borrow from Michael Franti.

Unbelievable

It constantly amazes me just how deluded conservatives can be...I mean I just looked at some of the comments left on the "George Bush: Miss me yet" Facebook fan page and was just dumbfounded. These people are just crazy, they really believe that Obama is to blame for everything that has happened and W had nothing to do with the state of the nation today. One person went as far to say that if it hadn't been for America then the rest of the world would be speaking German or Japanese. The reality of the situation is that these so called fiscal conservatives idolize people who overwhelmingly increase the national debt. They rail against the current administration for not heeding warnings about possible terrorist attacks but forget that W was given a report months before 9/11 entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" but did nothing. The fact of the matter is the Republicans are the epitome of hypocrites and are unembarrassed by this fact...in some cases are quite proud of that fact. Unbelievable!

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
[Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin lberlis, from lber, free; see leudh- in Indo-European roots.]


Now that I got the definition out of the way...I think it says it all.