GOPster Gang Preaching
Faith-Driven Fact-Debacles

---

Hank Ruark September 7, 2011 8:53 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: Your link goes direct to Far Right site devoted to precisely the kind of distortion you offer us now in two shots...that should about end your credibility here, sir ! Breitbart bites off piece on anything even close to anti-government, as you well know, and his reputation reflects that known bias so easily proven by visit to his site, for those whose eyes are not crossed.

---

Hank Ruark September 7, 2011 8:44 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: Furthermore, beyond what DJ laid on you, which spotlights favorite tool of some dialoggers --distortion, perversion of true meaning-- you are way off subject, which relates to our "ostensible" candidates. If you insist on further attempt to dislodge solid scientific findings, use my email hankatlma@ipns.com, and we can really get it on for pages and pages, without abusing this thread set for something else.

---

Kevin September 7, 2011 12:45 pm (Pacific time)

Leading Journal changes climate conclusion: Hank everyday it seems more and more scientists are saying manmade Global Warming is a scam. Now here comes another top-rated scientific publication. "Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.” Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. I’m actually surprised. Nature has been solidly in the tank for the “global warming”, and then the rebranded “global climate change” scam since the beginning. Al Gore will have to fire up the brimstone once again I guess.http://biggovernment.com/cstreet/2011/09/06/nature-journal-of-science-discredits-man-made-global-arming/

 DJ: You're quoting a secondary source, a person who either doesn't understand the science or wilfully distorts it for ideological reasons.

If you look at the ahstract the study is not definitive at all. The authors say "Model calculations suggest..." and that "Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain..." noting that "Here we present the first results..." (my italics added).

In addition, when we arrive at the cover page of Nature, we click on a story "Climate and Weather: Extreme measures" with  the heading: "Can violent hurricanes, floods and droughts be pinned on climate change? Scientists are beginning to say yes." 

If you want to make a scientific argument, it helps to know how science works. 

---

Hank RUARK September 6, 2011 7:36 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin:
Many of us share your concerns and most of your points are well taken...but the stance and record of Perry is far from enhanced via his attacks on govt. agencies and his own record.
There is no longer any question possible re climate changes due to how we have abused the environment, and proof is so overwhelming and so unquestionable that your suppositions re past temps and rain make little sense vs the evidence now widely known.

Yr participation appreciated but your isolated 'way out in FAR RIGHT field, and the umpire gonna leave you out there...

---

Kevin September 6, 2011 3:06 pm (Pacific time)

Hay is now the enemy? As a Farmer/Rancher I also have serious concerns about the EPA, which has been increasing their staff with people who have no idea what they're doing. I meet with many of these people on a regular basis. They are clueless! Governor Perry, and many other national office holders are starting to understand that this organization must be reined in to follow congressional oversight, and quit being a political arm of the obvious idiots in the Whitehouse. Just watch your food costs go up because of many of their recent rulings, and if not changed, food production will fall very quickly. Then when you go to your supermarkets and see empty shelves, remember that you at least have clean air. Of course you would have it anyway. These are scare tactics people, wise up. The leftists are your enemy, not those of us who provide your energy or grow and distribute your food. In terms of Global Warming, as I've written before on this site, it was a lot warmer 2,000 years ago. Look it up. I'm sure the people in New England would like to have a little Texas drought for a few days currently. Then look at the various so- called green energy companies that have closed, leaving thousands unemployed. One just recently closed after Obama helped allocate over 500 million bucks to them. What happened to that tax money? "EPA Declares Hay a Pollutant in Effort to Antagonize Small and Mid-Sized U.S. Cattle Feeders. http://r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2011/110901-epa.htm

 

---

Hank RUARK September 6, 2011 11:17 am (Pacific time)

To all: Rick Perry plans to decimate efforts for the environment: CLIMATE PROGRESS Rick Perry: The EPA ‘Won’t Know What Hit ‘Em’ By Stephen Lacey on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:34 am Speaking at a campaign stop in his home state yesterday, Texas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry announced his intentions to make the Environmental Protection Agency unapologetically pro-pollution. His remarks were reported by the Houston Chronicle: “I’ll tell you one thing: The EPA officials we have an opportunity to put in place, they’re going to be pro-business, and there’s not going to be any apologies to anybody about it,” he said. “Those agencies won’t know what hit ‘em.” It’s not hard to see why Perry would want environmental regulations to be crafted by polluters, considering that he’s taken $11 million from the oil and gas industry since 1998. Meanwhile, Perry has stepped up his attacks on climate science by falsely claiming that researchers manipulated data for money. Perry attended the town hall meeting shortly before surveying the damage from a catastrophic wildfire in central Texas. The fire was strengthened by winds from Tropical Storm Lee and a record-shattering drought in the state – two factors that climatologists agree will get worse as the world continues to warm. Wildfires have already burned a land area the size of Connecticut in state this year. One Texas-based climatologist recently explained that “it’s likely that much of Texas will still be in a severe drought this time next summer.” Indeed, there is still no rainfall expected for the state. Perry’s response to the disasters has been to pray for rain and to pray away successful water and air quality standards. Since neither of those strategies worked, he’s decided that stacking the EPA with pro-business officials is the easiest way to tear down decades of successful environmental regulation ----------------------------------------- Friends: I note with interest that we are not receiving any rebuttal of any level or kind re our continuing relay of national, authoritative information re these ostensible Presidential candidates. Facts are facts and political palaver is political h/s, sometimes substituted for fact if possible...apparently it is simply not possible here in the face of known reality.

---

Hank RUARK September 5, 2011 7:09 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Here's one re Perry's indelible record in Texas, from The National Memo site, which see "for the rest of the story": Perry's $500 Million Medicaid Mistake -- And Its Lethal Consequences Both as governor of Texas and as a leading Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry has established himself as a critic of federal programs -- and in particular as a “state’s rights” advocate who accuses Washington of gross ineptitude and waste. In his 2010 book "Fed Up" and his campaign speeches, Perry has often asserted that the states could perform far better if they were simply left to provide services such as health care without federal interference. But the “golden teeth” Medicaid scandal in Texas, now under investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, has exposed those claims to fresh scrutiny. And that is not the only blemish on Perry’s Texas record that belies his boast. One of the most embarrassing episodes during his first two terms as governor involved a plan to let private firms run Medicaid, replacing state employees. The privatization plan was an “innovation” that was supposed to save money. What it accomplished instead was to earn enormous sums for contractors like Deloitte Touch and Accenture, along with their Texas lobbyists, while costing Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars -- and all without achieving its most basic objectives. READ MORE

---

Hank RUARK September 4, 2011 8:16 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
      "Michelle Bachmann, Wife in Chief" is NATION special coverage of this one of our "ostensible candidates.
     By famed reporter Katha Pollitt, it is admirable for its straightforward and unbiased handling of the brute facts which tie her and "o/c" Perry to the most radical and threatening of the Far Right religious groups.
      Check it out and make up your own mind --that's what the First Amendment is all about --see my just-preceding Op Ed re personal responsibilities owed to the privilege we enjoy under that American guarantee of true free speech...with the fact of source-known as determinant.

---

Hank RUARK September 3, 2011 7:58 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
For realistic background on Obama current stance and why we face the problems we do, see this one"
Is Obama to Blame for America’s Mess?
September 3, 2011
Exclusive: With the 2009 stimulus money running dry and with businesses unnerved by Washington’s political gridlock and brinksmanship, America’s weak “recovery” has stalled, prompting more criticism of President Barack Obama. Robert Parry explores whether these complaints are fair."

Parry is famed for breaking the Iran/Contra/Reagan story; his site is
ConsortiumNews.com

---

Hank RUARK September 3, 2011 7:46 pm (Pacific time)

Hey, Keith !
Famlly Handyman old favorite of mine and for decades have had and pursued work in excellent sites I put together.
Re yr opinion, you are welcome to them, but Bachmann record does not support what you wrote.
I note you do not even yet offer any factual evidence to support your feelings, whatever their origination.
Re Obama, will deal with those same distortions and perversions soon...and looking fwd to next year when millions now learning re these ostensible candidates will act as our system demands...and in good consciece if they have explored the many varied channels open to us.
Hope you remove that bubble, whatever kind it really is, by then...
NOW 'nuff said ? If NOT, please come direct and we can really get it on: hankatlma@ipns.com

---

Hank RUARK September 3, 2011 7:37 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
Just re-analyzed New Yorker piece to check again on my earlier statements and analysis; it is indeed a straightforward piece of superb reporting with facts comprehensively stated and properly supported.
ANYone seeking it out and merely skimming will easily find more than 30 direct quotes and at least ten incidents connecting her directly with what can only be properly termed "radical" religious groups, movements and leaders in those actions.

If you really want your charter schools and public schools to be so invaded, she's your candidate.
A glance through the New Yorker piece will enlighten you "radically" re her stance on major issues, and also on why she wins Tea Party support; it may also raise even more questions about supporting statements here, which appear to me to have been more akin to belly-button genesiss than from observation, direct contact, study of factual information or other reliable and authoritative sources.

See mine several Op Eds back re personal First Amendment responsibilities, made even more important by stuff like this.

---

Keith Brandle September 3, 2011 7:08 pm (Pacific time)

Hank Ruark I have been reading the New Yorker for a very long time (mostly at my local Nail salon), and though it has shifted away from being impartial and objective in it's news analysis, it's use of color and font is superb. I see that it is ranked number 90 in U.S. cirrculation (see below link) and Family Handyman, which I subscribe to as I'm building a Tree House for my grandchildren. The Family Handyman endorsed Bachmann, which is good enough for me. Though I must admit that I did vote for Obama in 2008, but I will be voting for any candidate that runs against him next year. His policies have failed, he has not kept most of the promises he made in 2008, and last August I created more jobs than the negative number he did. Also, bottom line, who has more juice and influence, The New Yorker (#90), or Family Handyman (#82)? Nuff said. http://nyjobsource.com/magazines.html

---

Hank RUARK September 3, 2011 3:15 pm (Pacific time)

Keith:
      You fail to cite ANYthing from her resume; we know of her penchant for the child-bearing process and/or for children, which albeit admirable doth not her Presidency enhance, but simply encumbers.
     Her co-workers point out that in four IRS/collection counsel years she had about two years experience, being gone on maternity leave for long periods, and had only one case ever to reach court action. That's super-expensive "professional" collection/costs, don't you agree ?
    Did you READ the New Yorker report ? My "nuff said" referred to its straight reporting of realities in respect to her record, her utterances which have become a comedy staple on Internet sources, and her range of radical (or should it be de-ranged ?) doings, involvements, activities and --yes--values and beliefs.
    Since when doth a magazine's comparative circulation determine its values ? WHY doth it demean, diminish, demolish its content if it appeals to ANY particular, specific or specialized class ? In Chicago, I was Editor of one of the oldest educational materials magazines--three editors in 60 years---with circulation around 50,000 --but those were almost entirely the whole top administrative and working groups in its special field: Learning media.
    
    The New Yorker is world-famed and needs nothing from me...but if you did not read the piece you demonstrate the same closed-mind I would if I refused The National Review, conservative Bible-book; in Chicago that and leading mags. from every area constituted the twenty I carried and USED...so what do you read now ?
      
    Your first piece makes much of "insulated secular bubble dwellers" so it seems to me there is open question here as to which mind is at least partially closed by prejudice and demand for "belief in some kind of higher power", when in life-living reality it is hard, sometimes brutal, fact with which we must contend...and if indeed any "higher power" can assist on-the-side, so be it...if you discover or invent any practical way to demonstrate such intervention --other than open/ended faith, that is -- be sure to share it, since it will be a hell of a large news-story !!
    
    BUT then you fall victim to the directly-contradictory false value of attacking another group whose faith happens to proceed in a different direction...or do you see them, too, as cut off from the real world by "a secular bubble" since their religious stance seems to you "essentially incompatible with democracy".
       So what then do we DO ? Get along by open, honest, small-d democratic dialog --or constant warfare to kill 'em all off once and for all ? You surely lean towards conflict-demonstrated when you suggest we generally "never critique" them nor "check out Shari Law" --as if our own Bible (whatever version you prefer !) is not itself encumbered by much violence and vile action by far too many seen therein as leaders.

    You are correct re millions finally awakening and learning to lean on the First, in ways never building so rapidly before...that's what our open, honest, democratic channel here tries to facilitate...
    BUT when you describe the consequences, expectable or unforeseen, as we encounter them here, as somehow being disliked (read: resented) "when it conflicts with their values", you are demonstrably wrong and stand in need of detailed correction...which is why I write this here and now.

    We welcome dissent at any level --when it is achieved via solid factual information of much more value than circulation comparison for any magazine.

    SO I must repeat: DID you READ the New Yorker article ? If so, cite or quote from your copy on hand, with page and pgh ref. for our check here.
    Of course you can ignore or lie and whomp up mag/copy just for that purpose, without actual exposure to what it tells straight and honest.
    But then you will KNOW that you did so act...which should itself serve as demonstration of our good faith in your good faith..."'Nuff said ?"
              

---

Hank RUARK September 3, 2011 12:07 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
Please note this story comes from its source, Columbia Journalism Review, via Alternet, which continues with others re each of those ostensible candidates we've been exploring here:

In Rick Perry's Texas: Medicaid Is Wasting Millions -- On Braces:
Sat, 09/03/2011 - 12:22am —
Joe Conason

Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Perry complains constantly about Washington’s “culture of runaway spending,” wasteful government programs, and federal intrusions into the affairs of the states. In Fed Up, the book he published last year, the Texas governor bitterly criticizes Medicare (which he terms “unconstitutional”) as well as the health care reforms passed by President Obama and by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, which he regards as infringements on freedom.

Before Perry goes after Romney and Obama on medical spending, however, perhaps he ought to try putting his own state’s government in order first. According to a new investigation by a Dallas television station, the Medicaid program in Texas – overseen by Perry – is wasting millions of dollars annually on orthodontic braces for children who may not even need them.

But the story gets worse: Texas Medicaid wasting big money on unnecessary braces due to lax regulation by the state –and those millions are going straight to for-profit clinics owned by hedge funds.

Reviewing Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA’s investigation, health care expert Trudy Lieberman explains in the Columbia Journalism Review how the teeth of poor children in Texas became a golden opportunity for wealthy investors on Wall Street. Last year, the state spent more than $184 million to provide braces for 120,000 children – many of whom apparently did not qualify for orthodontic care under the state’s own criteria, according to WFAA investigative reporter Byron Harris. That is more than twice as much as Texas spent on the same program three years ago –and the same amount as all of the other 49 states."

---

Keith Brandle September 3, 2011 9:00 am (Pacific time)

Hank Ruark as you know The New Yorker, in its November 1, 2004 issue, broke with 80 years of precedent and issued a formal endorsement of Presidential candidate John Kerry. Suffice, they have continued to endorse democratic candidates which in effect has made it a quasi-arm of the democratic party. My earlier comments about Rep. Bachmann was keeping in the spirit of the 1st Amendment, i.e., all Americans have a right to run for office,etc., and those who dislike any candidates have their 1st Amendment rights to voice that dislike. Subsequently the magazine you endorse as a fine publication is politically motivated, and that's great. By the way Mr. Ruark here is a link to the top 25 selling magazines, and please note that the New Yorker is not listed. So who is actually influenced by the New Yorker in fly-over America, especially when the average subscriber of that magazine makes several times the average salary of the average voter? nuff said? http://www.magazinecost.com/popular-magazines/

---

Hank RUARK September 2, 2011 8:11 pm (Pacific time)

KEITH:
      I wrote, re the NYorker piece:

"It'll make your day via its exquisite demonstration of straight-stuff which becomes devastating precisely because it IS "straight"...'nuff said ???"

      THAT is obviously honest appreciation for a straight review,with the New Yorker reputation riding on the way it appears to most readers.

---

Hank RUARK September 2, 2011 10:54 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Please note as part of mine to Keith that my reference to the New Yorker article is what set off the mental process to which I refer.
Doubly odd/queer, is it not, for him to so react to publication in one of the world's leading magazines, when not one word of mine indicates any kind of information re Bachmann except what is to be expected in a world leader in probing factual review.

What's that oldie about staying out of the kitchen if it gets too hot ???????

---

hank RUARK September 2, 2011 11:01 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Do you suppose K's comment re new attack on Muslims may have connection to this story ? He may simply be the victim of their propaganda, rather than a participant.
Check it out for yourself at Alternet on the web.
----------------------------------------------

Exposed: Right-Wing Think Tanks and Bloggers Conducted Secret 10-Year Campaign to Fan Fear of Muslims
Extremist foundations, think tanks, pundits, and bloggers carried out a 10-year-old campaign to promote fear of Islam and Muslims in the U.S.
August 29, 2011 |
A small group of inter-connected foundations, think tanks, pundits, and bloggers is behind the 10-year-old campaign to promote fear of Islam and Muslims in the U.S., according to a major investigative report released here Friday by the Center for American Progress (CAP).

The 130-page report, ‘Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America’, identifies seven foundations that have quietly provided a total of more than 42 million dollars to key individuals and organisations that have spearheaded the nation-wide effort between 2001 and 2009.

---

Hank RUARK September 2, 2011 10:50 am (Pacific time)

Keith: Odd process of thought that leads you to seek what amounts to attack on Muslims as your protective act for the First Amendment rights of all, and as obviously-protective shield for a Presidential candidate, whose status opens her to probing fullbore study by all of us. Nearly as queer is it to attack this thread, as you obviously do, when we do precisely that...use our own First Amendment right to lay out fully authoritative and factual information about candidate Bachmann....for whom yours whose a peculiar penchant for overpraise and distortion of what many other authentically reliable sources are telling us...which is why it is reported here on this open, honest, democratic channel where we welcome dissent when it is something other than belly-button feelings.

---

Keith Brandle September 2, 2011 7:04 am (Pacific time)

Rep. Bachmann, like any other candidate, is simply exposing her value system so the voters can see her offerings. She has a very impressive resume', and I'm not just talking about her post doctorate training in law, her five successful children, her #23 foster children, but the whole individual package. You have a minority of people out there who live in a secular bubble, but the majority of Americans share in the belief of some kind of higher power, which is what Rep. Bachmann often references. I have noticed over the years many of those insulated secular bubble dwellers frequently attack Christians from afar, but never critique the American Muslims whose views are essentially incompatible with democracy, i.e., check out Sharia Law which is the ultimate endgame, politically speaking, for all Muslims. Just the same, we are seeing people exercising the 1st Amendment, and some just don't like that process when it conflicts with their values. Tough.

---

Hank RUARK September 1, 2011 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Bachmann motivations, beliefs and values, surely shaping any still-possible mental processes, are deeply and very definitely explored in a superb NEW YORKER piece,very properly titled "Leap of Faith", in the August 15/22 joint issue. It'll make your day via its exquisite demonstration of straight-stuff which becomes devastating precisely because it IS "straight"...'nuff said ??

---

Hank RUARK August 31, 2011 2:50 pm (Pacific time)

TO ALL:
THREAT to your Social Security ? You better believe it ! See this one:
Perry's Iowa Remarks Reveal Republican Strategy on Social Security
Wednesday 31 August 2011
by: Daniel Marans, Campaign for America's Future | Report
The media have portrayed Governor Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” at a recent Iowa campaign event as the latest extreme statement of an unconventionally candid, conservative presidential candidate. But Perry’s full remarks reveal just as much about the Republican Party’s strategy for cutting Social Security as they do about Perry himself.

The question that prompted Perry to call Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and the beginning of Perry’s response—which have not been flagged in the flurry of media attention over Perry’s statement—shed light on rank-and-file Republicans’ support for Social Security and the delicate strategy Republican politicians employ in talking about how to “reform” the program, as a result.

(For a point-by-point takedown of Perry’s biggest Social Security whoppers, click here.)
Go to origiinal site of above for this link....well worth it for review and analysis of all Perry stunners re S/S, which he presumably would never accept when he eventually becomes eligible...good question for someone to ask !! =hcr

---

Hank RUARK August 31, 2011 10:58 am (Pacific time)

DJ:
It's NOT what he smokes, but intent of his interference here.
See mine at Hank Ruark August 27, 2011 7:47 pm (Pacific time) which puts it fail-and-square.
His further-foolishness re reversing percentages purely proves my point and denies him any further credibility here or elsewhere.
First rule on ALL threads is stick to subject, avoid any belly-button feeling disguised as "informed" opinion.

DJ: Right on, Hank. 

---

Alberto August 29, 2011 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

Hank as per the liberal network CNN, Obama is toast: "A new poll by CNN and ORC International finds that 27 percent of Democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than Barack Obama for president in 2012."

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/29/130.poll.pdf //I guess for some that means one in four democrats are racists?

DJ:  Just being against Obama doesn't make one a racist; it just means that they are opposed to Obama's policies or actions to date. But if you look at the inverse picture, it means that 73% would accept him as the nominee. What are you smoking?

---

Hank RUARK August 29, 2011 4:07 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Do you know site OpEdNews.com ? Here's one from them, with the charts themselves left for you to examine on the site before you copy for participant idiots to whom you wish to deliver them: Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law By Dave Johnson (about the author) Problem: Your right-wing brother-in-law is plugged into the FOX-Limbaugh lie machine, and keeps sending you emails about "Obama spending" and "Obama deficits" and how the "Stimulus" just made things worse. Solution: Here are three "reality-based" charts to send to him. These charts show what actually happened. (They are beautifully done and well worth both your examination and use with others, since they are specially relevant to claims made knowingly by every one of the four ostensible "candidates" under dialog examinattion here by us-all.

---

Hank Ruark August 29, 2011 11:40 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's sample of multitudinous solid coverage re Bachmann "queer quotes", per mine previously: (From Alternet) Callous Michele Bachmann Calls Deadly Hurricane Irene "Message from God" to Cut Spending Hurricane Irene's death toll is up to 27 people so far, including an 11-year-old boy who was killed when a tree crashed through his Virginia apartment. But as the storm was raging up the East Coast—and just a few days before the anniversary of devastating Hurricane Katrina—Michele Bachmann was on the campaign trail, and making some very callous, thoughtless statements about Irene. In Florida—a state that knows from hurricanes, but was fortunately spared by Irene—Bachmann told a roomful of supporters that Hurricane Irene and the earthquake preceding it were, in fact, God's warning to Washington. The shocking quote: “I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.” Bachmann's blamed plenty on God before, including her decision to be a "submissive" wife, but linking a devastating natural disaster to her extreme radical views on the economy as Americans perished is particularly callous*.

---

Hank Ruark August 29, 2011 11:32 am (Pacific time)

To all: Have long contended educational system desperately UNDER-funded for what it SHOULD, COULD, WOULD do under competent leadership. American Prospect just cited, July/Aug. 2010, has whole section on "Reading by Grade Three-A National Goal to Help Every Child Succeed" proving up my point with 22pp. from competent authorities. Again, this relevant to dialog re ostensible "candidates" of either party and their declared stands on education --mostly "cut and cap" and the hell with educated labor force vital to whole concept of American middle class.

---

Hank Ruark August 29, 2011 11:23 am (Pacific time)

Vic, DJ, et al: Many share your views and some add strong authority to it daily. See Robert Reich;"Everyday Corruption"l; American Prospect July/Aug, 2010. He states "policy-making has become an extension of the market battlefield, with combatant struggle chief cause of confusion and damaging competion but mostly among participant corporate entities. "See also Leonard Goodman's column Public defender, IN THESE TIMES, Sept. 2011, with massive, multi-reasons why today both parties represent capital, not people, above all. Investors' interest always comes first, the people's second. Each of these reflects on dialog here re these semi-"candidates", poor excuses for real thing, offered by desperate pirates who have boarded and overwhelmed GOP-ship.

---

Hank Ruark August 29, 2011 8:06 am (Pacific time)

To all: Media overflow with detailed reports re our four "candidates". Seek out same in TIME et al and on Internet to guide you in evaluating what Op Ed states. See, for example, "All the Candidates' Pork" TIME 8/29, complete with striking graphic showing how all demand and depend on fedfunds they they deny and depreciate. Note especially examples of fedfunds for pet projects in personal domains, and also some showing major point: "Some things only government can do for its people", thus demeaning, diminishing constant plaint re "the smaller government, the better" --and denying Reagan gospel all cintinue to propound that "Government IS the problem !"

---

Colli August 28, 2011 2:44 pm (Pacific time)

Sorry Hank . . . I almost forgot Bachman. She is very much a wild-card but is also very much a loose cannon. There are some things about her I like but to be honest, she scares me.

---

COLLI August 28, 2011 2:42 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Hank: OK - Here goes: If the election were held today, I would have to cast my vote for Ron Paul . . . not because I feel that he is the perfect choice but because he is the least of currently available evils. In my opinion, the single biggest point in his favor is his desire to run a complete and accurate audit of the Federal Reserve. I also have a tendency to be attracted to his libertarian leanings without being a true Libertarian myself. You see, I am very much a political mongrel who admires segments of Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian philosophies. I cannot honestly say that there is a single candidate from any political party who I find inspiring. Having seen Obama in action and having learned that his single largest contributing group was big banking, I would not give him my vote if my life depended upon it. Romney is and always has been a horrific waffler, and the big money jumped on the Perry bandwagon too quickly and too heavily for me to believe he is anything but purchased goods. Let's face it Hank, it is another lose, lose, lose, lose proposition unless some miraculous late entry throws his or her hat into the ring!

---

Alberto August 28, 2011 2:19 pm (Pacific time)

Hank in the spirit of your Op Ed, here's a recent wire story that put's those referenced republican candidates of yours on record for traditional marriage. Since this is a reflection of American [majority] values, how do you think Obama will respond? Should prove interesting, and fun to watch don't you think? Hard to be glib on this one for Obama, and many other issues that will be surfacing from his past speeches going back to 2008.: "SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) -- Texas Governor and Republican presidential contender Rick Perry has signed a pledge vowing to support a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a union of one man and one woman, the group sponsoring the pledge said on Friday...Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, among those competing with Perry for Republican presidential nomination, have also signed the pledge..." Also heard Sara Palin is about to come on board, but as you know, rumors, fantasy and facts are different. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/28/us-campaign-perry-marriage-idUSTRE77P74D20110828

---

Hank Ruark August 28, 2011 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

Vic: Okay re "welcome back"--just getting good start... BUT please specify your feelings re candidates covered in Op Ed...and if you wish come to emailer for more on other points, most of which demand much more substantiation than you give... We all know O. gonna run-again, but it's those on-other-side we looking at here and now...we;ll get around to the oveall view once decision or desperation end up GOP search...

---

Hank Ruark August 28, 2011 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Had honestly hoped to elicit some real and very pointed dialog re each of those named --Perry, Bachmann, Romney, Paul-- but seem only to arouse generalized, unsubstantiated belly-button feelings rather than sharp insights to share re these weak-kneed excuses for usual more-solid GOP names with some possibility of success as President. DO believe Op Ed makes some very illuminating points above, but personally I have many major and some massive questions still open on each one of those involved in it. SO as salt (and perhaps hot sauce !) on Op Ed, here's some of them. For Paul, see definitive article in the current TIME, and react with your own mind to him --at 77, oldest/ever Pres. candidate-- and his background of Ayn Randian reality wanderings as man with finger on atomic button. It is clear other Libertarian beliefs and values, if honestly held, in themselves bar him from honest service under Presidential oath. Then there's scads of stuff re extremely queer Bachmannian quotes, and even more re Perry and jobs to his supporters with myths about Texas job growth, primed and motivated mostly by cheap labor from Mexico...and so on. Similar articles to one in TIME re Paul, not at hand but will folo later with issues, dates, and perhaps links, make of his whole Governor record a reductio ad absurdum for those who can understand. (It helps if experience includes coverage of legislative and governmental terms.) Romney is separate case, with even longer record of confused, contrived statements and actions including confessed devotion to corporate modes for massive manipulation of economy. What say, class ? ANYone disagree ?? IF SO, stand up and say your piece...and we may all learn a bit more about the real character of these contrived candidates, in time to guide us towards some of that shared wisdom exhibited in other much earlier American election preparations.

---

Vic August 28, 2011 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

The Rep-Dem sham is nothing more than a rattlesnake with two heads. Obama is either a dismal failure at best, or a sociopathic liar war criminal at worst, reponsible for continuing and escalating Bush era theft, murder and bloodshed. He does not deserve another ten minutes, let alone another four years. He, like the Bush-Cheney regime, should be given a fair trial and then hung for crimes against humanity.. Wake up, peoploe ! There is only ONE party...they distract us with phoney elections and phoney rivalry...and their agenda continues uninterrupted. BTW, good to hear from you, Hankster !

DJ: On Nov 23, 1964, in Paris, Malcolm X said that:

"The only thing that made him [LBJ] acceptable to the world was that the shrewd capitalists, the shrewd imperialists, knew that the only way people would run towards the fox would be if you showed them a wolf. So they created a ghastly alternative."

So it was in 2007: Obama or McCain/Palin. 

---

Hank Ruark August 28, 2011 12:08 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Your second shot appreciated and evaluated. Disagree re 2019 election meanings, due to knowledge of how the results were obtained. Re Rasmussen poll, suffers same set of silly difficulties as others...see recent Internet details re overemphasis on those reached, other points. From long educational experience with these techniques, mostly disappointing, I now naturally distrust all-such, esp. those with questionable political funds financing known. Re propaganda distortions spread by others, my invitation via emailer still stands for you, if you see real honest, open demo dialog rather than easy repetition of perversed statements. You read sources re stance of massive majorities far from what others with authoritative view now state; what are your sources ???

---

Hank Ruark August 27, 2011 9:22 pm (Pacific time)

Colli et al: Just found perfect review of Obama's first year, by Jonathan Alter, surely a well- proven journalist, on National Memo. For those interested in factual writing about this first year of President Obama, I suggest you seek it out and evaluate with your own mind. Review of garbage thrown by Alberto may add some further significance simply by comparison with the truth. AND we know Alter...

---

Hank Ruark August 27, 2011 9:08 pm (Pacific time)

Coll et ali: Thanks for last sentence...man named Hank Minott, famed burea manager, taught me that at UPI-Bsn. There were four others besides him, believe me or not, all called Hank....so I became A"Hey YOU !" for some few weeks, until story copy got published across New England. That's when the lessons began...he sat down after hours and analyzed strongly (read: "brutally" !) what was in print and what should have been there. Beat anything else I encountered...and I hope it still sticks. Do you need a few names for that new Congressional-expenditure list ???

---

Hank Ruark August 27, 2011 7:47 pm (Pacific time)

Alberto: Take your script to any of several Right Wing threads, please. I very courteously offered you free access to my emailer for full dialog on these off-subject/of/Op Ed and you immediately demonstrate your total insensitivity and understanding of dialog courtesy by repeating the same propaganda production. You are welcome to your opinion as shown in both, but this dialog is and will continue on the subject of the Op Ed --the potential top candidates for GOP nomination --and NOT be circumvented by false-lure other issues raised for that very impact on this thread. IF this is not clear and solid enough for you, use my email address and we can "get it on" in depth and full detail re each other's world view, the issues you raise, and anything else your little open heart may desire. SO stick this one where you can feel it to remember: stick to subject of item on thread. That's first, foremost and most responsible action you owe others here AND both the proprietors of S-N AND me, as affected writer with every right to insist on open, fair, honest and fully small-d democratic dialog on my Op Ed. BUT with no further responsibility to respond to your fishy lure, with its obvious hooks and unavoidable smell...

---

COLLI August 27, 2011 7:33 pm (Pacific time)

Hank: Your sole-shot-to-getitnow concern is valid and to be honest, I hadn't thought of that possibility. I also believe that you campaign-fund usage limitation makes excellent sense. Let contributors give what they want into a communal pot and then dole out set amounts to all candidates on a phased approach with an upper limit total. All excess contributions could be donated to one or more world-wide charities. Then again, we could always direct the excess donations to a new fund . . . say a Congressional lobotomy fund, for example! Sorry Hank, I just had to throw that in. You're a good man Hank. You call them like you see them and it is refreshing. Colli

---

Alberto August 27, 2011 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

Hank I imagine you are familiar with the saying... "PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING": Then compare Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics. One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't...The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus, and wants to spend even more in a similar manner. Please recall he said te Stimulus Bill was for infrastructure and investing in the future. I believe he will be saying the same thing when he introduces his "plan" soon. Hank by the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight. My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't. In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown. Hank there is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs. But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War.What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?

---

Hank Ruark August 27, 2011 3:20 pm (Pacific time)

Colli: Your insightful, sensitive and sensible comment greatly appreciated...since I'm 93.75, so far, understand your election dream and shared it for a long time, but fear I'm now beyond point where it makes much difference. My solution would be not single-term/based, since fear many would see that as sole-shot-to-getitnow, but extremely strong public-pay for campaign costs tightly administered with club and gun, if needed, and with sensible amounts to cover but no way for electee to handle a damned cent. I note yours makes no bones re evaluation of those named in Op Ed...that kind of cogitational response to these laughable substitutes for real runners with record and responsibility proven is what Op Ed was meant to highlight and illuminate. Moretocome---watch for two-parter on ALEC as greatest political con-game ever manipulated...now in work. Blessings on rest of your days...

---

COLLI August 27, 2011 8:52 am (Pacific time)

Hank: First, let me say that this is an excellent article with many good points. I agree with much of what you say. I believe that the political parties (ALL OF THEM) are “The Problem” behind the problems. Every potential candidate knows that they must succumb to the sirens song wailed by the respective political party, in order to get the benefit of the copious distribution of Re-Election campaign contributions raised by the parties. Think about how much better it would be if, for example, every President, every Senator, and every Congressional Representative were limited to a single six-year term. The terms could be staggered so that 1/3 of all members of Congress would be replaced every two years. With no possibility of re-election, these ladies and gentlemen could vote based on their heart and brain rather than the command of the Party elders/rulers. Think how refreshing it would be to actually see those we elected voting in our best interest rather than that of the political party they represent. I am 65 years old Hank and I am sad to say that in every single election since I turned 21, I ended-up voting for what I perceived as the lesser of two (and once three) evils. I have voted Democratic, Republican, and Independent (for Ross Perot when he ran). My dream is that I might, at least once before I die, be able to vote for someone I truly believed was good for the country and the world. I fear that as long as the political parties carry the weight they currently do, this is not likely to happen.

---

Mike August 26, 2011 5:53 pm (Pacific time)

Hank it's clear that we evaluate the same evidence differently, but as the below poster Alberto pointed out in their Rasmussen link, only 14% of Americans think we, America, are on the right track. Had the poll been reversed then I would evaluate certain things differently. I guess I'm in the same company regarding my opinion as a super majority of Americans, and that's some good company in my opinion. I would also point out that the 2010 election provided a republican landslide in state legislatures that had not been seen in decades, which has delightfully happened during a census period where political districts are being redrawn by those now in power. It was the masses of voters who put these current pols into power, not some small groups of radicals. It's all about the "over-spending."

---

Hank Ruark August 26, 2011 3:02 pm (Pacific time)

Alberto, Mike:
Thank you both for thoughtful points and proper dialog/tone in these Comments.

Happens I disagree point by point with you, Alberto, and will be pleased to send line-for-line repudiation if you will contact me at hankatlma@ipns.com, since to do so here will demand far too much space.
You fail to note where you stand on any one of those characterized here, which is the point of the Op Ed --to sharpen distinctions for those making that choice.
General unloading of your whole political perspective proves nothing more than that you can put it nicely into readable sentences, while entirely avoiding challenge of Op Ed, obviously, to comment on "those still standing".

Mike, yours confuses me since "four years of broken promises" from "big spending yakity yackers" --unfortunately for clarity of your comment--- obviously applies to Bush II regime by far more in both action and dollars than it does to current administration.
Then you speak of democratic party as being taken over, when by far the strongest view today in Amenican political groups is the sad fate of the old Republicans, now very obviously driven from their own domain by radicals offering only obstruction and denial, at least as close to really treasonous as any one set of situations in our American history.

If you care to respond to emailer above, will document in depth and detail every point made,impossible here by space pressures.

---

Alberto August 26, 2011 9:10 am (Pacific time)

Those who are outraged by current Obama/democrat policies are growing in number. I do not participate in Tea Party functions because of both personal geography and limited free time, but they have my support for addressing issues such as over-spending, and the smoke-mirrors/misdirection coming out of the Whitehouse. From my observations Obama Democrats see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves, where they need to have their incomes supplemented, their health care insurance regulated and guaranteed, their relationships with their employers governed by union leaders. Highly educated mandarins can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves. That is the culture of dependence. The tea partiers see things differently. They're not looking for lower taxes -- half of tea party supporters, a New York Times survey found, think their taxes are fair. Nor are they financially secure -- half say someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. Two-thirds say the recession has caused some hardship in their lives. But they recognize, correctly in my opinion, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens' dependence on it. And, invoking the language of the Founding Fathers, they believe that this will destroy the culture of independence which has enabled Americans over the past two centuries to make this the most productive and prosperous -- and the most charitably generous -- nation in the world. Mid-century sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld's dictum that politics is about who gets how much when; Paul Lazarsfeld saw politics as just a matter of dollars and cents. The tea party movement reminds us of what the Founders taught -- that it has a moral dimension, as well. They risked all in the cause of the culture of independence. Hank :"Just 14% of Likely U.S. Voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen poll...and an astounding "Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters say the country is heading down the wrong track..." Real change is coming from the voters this upcoming election. // http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

---

Mike August 26, 2011 6:36 am (Pacific time)

In November 2012 on election day people can decide if they want another four years of the same failures [or] get out of the ditch and get back on track that aware people know as American Exceptualism. The vote was actually made in 2010, so expect that the country has continued to have wised up to the broken promises from big spending yakity yackers. The democratic party has been taken over by the short-sighted and the undisciplined, how sad.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.