Tag: Statements

2011 Anal-Ocity #19

They just cannot help themselves…..I am sorry that most of the Anal-ocities I have picked seemed to be overwhelmingly stuff that GOPers have had to say….but, let us be honest….they DO make some of the most anal things of anybody in society…….you would think that politicians would eventually learn that in an electronic age you cannot hide from the things you say……

Today’s anal-ocity is from the Repub candidate for governor of West Virginia, Mr. Larry Faircloth…….

Terry and Larrice Craver, the co-founders of We the People of Hampshire County, said the group hosted a candidate forum April 29 in Romney,Virginia that three GOP candidates attended.

“While Mr. Faircloth was giving his opening comments, he chose to tell a racist, sexist ‘Joke,’” the couple said in a Monday email obtained by the Daily Mail.”This offended several people, some laughed, most gasped, and one man stood up and walked out and made the statement ‘You’re all nothing but a bunch of  bigots’ on his way out the door.”

The Cravers declined to retell the joke in a telephone interview.

Mr. Faircloth ‘s comments were to call Pelosi a “BIMBO” and then to call Pres. Obama a “SAMBO”…….

I do not understand this type of hate among politicians…..

When will conservs decide to call these types of bigot and sexist candidates out for their unfeeling and unwarranted attacks of people that they do not agree with, politically…..this is beyond tacky……it disgusting and sad that in the 21st century our politics have not moved beyond this sort of trash……

McCain And The Experience Thingy

This will be the last time that this will reported on in Info Ink, in the last couple of days I have been blasted for my piece on the Clark McCain experience piece, so I decidied to comment one more time.

Stopit! Stop it! Before we go forth please take a moment to flush the emotional BS down the toilet.

I do not think that Wes Clark or myself are impuning McCain’s service to this country–to do so would be political, societal and cultural suicide. Because there is no definitive definition to the word patriotism or national hero, it is purely subjective. To use an obscure concept to say that is experience to be president is absurd. Even McCain has admitted this in past conversations.

As I have said before, a uniform does not make one a patriot, but rather a soldier. The National Hero label is a label and nothing more. To call someone a hero just because they served in the military is to belittle those who have actually done heroic acts.

Few people who have been president have actually had the experie3ncxe to hold the title of president. To get emotional because someone questions another’s experience claim is just dumb and usually comes from those who have no answer to the “real” question of experience.

Try to move past the BS and on to the issues that are most important to the American people. You know those silly issues like the economy, health care, education, war, etc–if we allow the candidates to keep circumventing the issues, then we will have 4 more years of the same BS that we live with today.

America! Get over it! Move on!

Another Statement Of The Obvious

How long will this continue? This is very old news, but yet they just keep firing away at it. Is there any intelligent people left that does know how badly the Iraq situation was handled? If there are, please, just leave them under their rock, we do not need them out and about.

A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that “in the euphoria of early 2003,” U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.

The report said it wasn’t until July 16, 2003, that Franks’ successor, Gen. John Abizaid, said coalition forces were facing a classic guerrilla insurgency.

Even so, the coalition made some progress, only to have its optimism dashed after the insurgency boiled over in April 2004, when Sunni Arab insurgents and Shiite militias launched violent assaults in many parts of Iraq, the report said.

The authors said the Army had considerable experience and training for guerrilla wars but had not been in one like Iraq since 1992 in Somalia. They said former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Franks “that he thought too few troops were envisioned in the (invasion) plan.”

Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.

The “post-war situation in Iraq was severely out of line with the suppositions made at nearly every level before the war,” the report said.

Its writers said it was clear in January 2005 that the Army would remain in Iraq for some time, the writers concluded. The report covered the period from May 2003 to January 2005.

OKay, we now know that the invasion and occupation were f*cked up! Can we please move on to solving the problem? Restating the obvious, over and over and over, does nothing to stop the killing of Americans in Iraq.

LDS Church Distance From FLDS

After recent occurrences and raids, the LDS Church is trying to distance themselves from the polygamist practices of the FLDS.

As confusion continues worldwide about the connection between the Salt Lake-based LDS Church and the FLDS polygamist group in Texas, LDS officials ramped up their efforts Thursday to clarify that their members have nothing to do with plural marriage.

The frustration that LDS leaders are feeling over the confusion also was detailed in a letter to more than 80 major media outlets nationwide from the church’s attorney, and in a public statement from one of its apostles — also an attorney — about the importance of protecting the church’s identity.

The two documents were part of a package of videos and statements of clarification posted on the church’s Web site at www.lds.org in the “newsroom” section.

The letter reminds editors and publishers that the LDS Church has obtained legal registration, trade and service marks for the term “Mormon,” among other terms, and asks journalists to refrain from calling the FLDS polygamous group “fundamentalist Mormons.”

But at least one religion scholar said trying to enforce such a distinction could be problematic.

“We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above,” says the letter from Elder Lance B. Wickman, who is identified as the church’s “general counsel.”

Distinguishing the 13 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the few thousand members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church in both Texas and the Utah-Arizona border towns of Hildale and Colorado City has proven to be an ongoing challenge for the LDS Church, which has issued at least three other public statements distancing itself from the FLDS group in recent months.

The survey seeking to determine how widespread public confusion between Latter-day Saints and the FLDS Church shows, according to the LDS Church statement, that:

• More than a third of those surveyed (36 percent) erroneously thought that the Texas compound was part of the LDS Church.

• 6 percent said the two groups were partly related.

• 29 percent correctly said the two groups were not connected at all.

• 29 percent were not sure.

Still, asking media to refrain from using the term “Mormon fundamentalist” could be problematic for the church, according to Jan Shipps, professor emeritus of history and religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University, who has long researched the LDS Church

The LDS Church banned the practice of polygamy in the late 19th century and excommunicates any of its members who practice it.

Professor’s Political Classroom

I am really weary of the term being used…..just what is an elitist?

Elitist! Elitist? Who Is The Elitist? (A History Lesson)

Have you heard this term used recently? Oh yeah, Clinton and McCain have thrown it around like Mardi Gras beads. But what does it, the term, really mean? That will depend on who you are and where you are. Right now, the use of the term elitist is nothing more than a media buzzword or a political talking point. No where do any of these so-called people of the people bother to explain what they are talking about. I will attempt to give the reader a little background on the term, elitist.

Remember ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy? Back in the early days of Greek political discussions, the Sophists, most notably Thrasymachus termed those who were the strongest in society as elitists—the rulers—who control education and socialization through legislation and enforcement. But, like everyone else, they are self-interested. Hence they make laws and conventions that are in their own interests, not those of their weaker subjects. It is these conventions that largely determine their subject’s conceptions of justice and other virtues. By being trained, through civics class, to follow and obey, subjects are unwittingly adopting an ideology, a code of values and behavior that serves not their own interests but rather those of their rulers.

To put this more simply, The state is nothing more than an organ of a ruling minority. That the majority (meaning you) is permanently incapable of governing themselves because they lack the capacity to govern. The masses are manipulated by the power elite, because they are passive. Why the people are considered passive? Easy one—1) they do not have a clear concept of what they want from the state, 2) the people are incapable of objectively assessing and interpreting facts, 3) the people are irrational in their reasoning process.

A political inequality is a mechanism by which society ensures that the important positions are filled by most qualified people. And those positions are filled by an uninformed public that votes these elitists into position of power, never to see them relinquish it. These people live by a code that says that their needs to be a certain amount of social, economic and political inequality for the society to function properly. These beliefs make truly participatory democracy impossibility. Why? Power should never be diffused to the will of the people.

Now, Clinton and McCain have called Obama an elitist……thinking……an elitist calling an elitist an elitist…how silly! Clinton is an elitist, after 35 years of power and control, she could be nothing else. McCain is the same story. Now for Obama, he cannot be considered an all out elitist but when a leader emerges from the masses, then he will do any and everything to avoid returning to that position. He will most likely, once transformed into an elitist, become transformed into a jealous guardian of his own privilege once he obtains power.

Someone once called this election season as “the silly season” and on that point I agree. I hope that this short history lesson helps you to understand what an elitist is and that everyone involved in politics is just that. They are from the get go or the morph into one after they attain power and influence. The American voter has no real choice when voting…..they vote for elitist A or elitist B…that is one reason that very little changes from one elected president to another.

I just wanted to let my readers know just what is meant by the use of the term elitist….I await your comments…..

Troops Told To Stay Out Of Politics

Back in the day, when I was a trooper in Vietnam, it became a major issue that we not involve ourselves in politics. That came about because of the growing anti-war attitude within the armed forces. Some things never change.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president,” Admiral Mullen wrote, “we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.”

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Admiral Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting military personnel around the world. He said their questions included, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?” and, “Do you think it’s better for one party or another to have the White House?”

IMO, there is a growing resentment within the ranks over the war, this is the first salvo against any anti-war movement that may be smoldering. If so, then here is the chink in the military armor and should be exploited by the movement.