No frist for you.

Shiva H Vishnu @ 1:

Yes, America has a new objective as someone on here said the other night, and that is "Bringing Democracy Over There, So We Don't Have to Have it Here."

Exactly. If government's the problem, why are we exporting it--and all of our money--to other countries?

just like a superpower to crumble under its' own weight

Few recognize that the rise of fascism is not a reaction against socialism but the inevitable outcome of the trend towards socialism that has now become a tyranny of Multinational Bankster Corporate Fascism, complete with jackbooted SS-WAT teams, and totally corrupted, bought and paid for politicians, all of which would be eliminated by enforcement of the original 13th Titles of Nobility and Honor Article of Amendment to the Constitution. Jefferson's Prophesy has come to pass. America has descended from Freedom To Fascism.

Since the advent of the "Bush Dynasty" the words of Richard Henry Lee in 1787 are ringing true – "The great object is, in a republican government, to guard effectually against perpetuating any portion of power, great or small, in the same man or family. This perpetuation of power is totally uncongenial to the true spirit of republican governments."

The anti-terrorist wars we have since found ourselves engaged in are as wrong and of the same order as those of Hitler and the invasions of the countries of Europe and Africa. The "Security" charade is a cover for the illicit manipulation of public opinion, to keep the public focus off the devious manipulations of the "Inner Sanctum of Government" in the pre-planning and execution of the September 11 Apocalypse. The Truth of the WTC towers and Building Seven demolition has been covered up, and used as justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

if we don't fix the bridges in iraq, we will have to fix them here...

The 500 billion dollars spent so far on Bush's War (and it is his war) could have rebuilt most of the infrastructure in America.
We have been passed by and are now a second rate country by comparison to many other countries. The only thing we have that is superior is our Military Technology...that's it, plain and simple.

"a civilization rotting at the peak"

-- Yeats

Link didn't work for me.
*

conservNOT @ 8:

if we don't fix the bridges in iraq, we will have to fix them here...

I say we give all this work to the private sector (i.e., Halliburton) - let them rebuild all the bridges in D.C. first and sit back and watch Congress et al, pancake into the various rivers and waterways - then WE can rebuild Congress from the bottom up.
*

Finally these talking heads are starting to go after the BRAND republicans. Repubs have been better at PR for years. You don't even have to argue anything if people think the other brand sucks. People used to like Walmart, but they don't anymore. Now they go to Target. Don't any of these politicos know what PR is?

Dems need to start blaming more crap on the old "republican" congress, "republican" president's war, "republican" culture of corruption, "republican" cronyism so people quit repeating that both parties are exactly the same and the blame for the last 4-6 years can go on the people who were actually in charge.

OLBERWOMYN IS A HATER!!!!!

SoWhat @ 23:

NOLA:

I'm convinced they actually wanted riots in NOLA. They practically advertised it on cable news. Riots riots snipers chaos!!! They wanted it to eat itself like Iraq did after the invasion. Then they could say the poor people deserved it and they could do next to nothing.

This country likes to spend money on anything and everything but its citizens.

You're right - this seemed obvious. One thing repugs really don't understand is the human spirit. This is the single most important thing that gives me hope. As chronic psychopaths and sociopaths they simply do not understand the normal human condition. They think everyone else is as morally debased as they are.

NOLA had been ripped wide open - it was a raw and bleeding wound. The people had to find a way to survive - but while the GOP had imagined and hoped they would turn on each other - the tragedy brought them together showcasing their inherent strength and resilience.

The Democratic buzz word this month will be - DEFLECT
To be used when reacting to ANY republican response.
Please take note and use accordingly in your daily life.
TIA

IRAQ’S NEW 'ELECTRIC' HIT PLAY: ‘THE ICEMAN COMETH, WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS’

"there aren’t Republican sewers"

Isn't most of that political party a sewer?

Just askin'

:o)

Rachel always kicks ass on these shows

Denial is a funny thing.

Most conservatives couldn't see a connection between their adoration for the free market and tainted Chinese toothpaste, either.

Something to think about:

Just as Ralph Nader was pushing for locked cockpit doors BEFORE 9/11, he's also been the only person talking about restoring our falling highway infrastructure.

I know he gets a bad rap and people talk about his "ego," but for Christ's sake, when are we gonna get past that and elect the guy who seems to always know exactly what this country needs???

[...] America’s Rachel Maddow, via Crooks and Lairs: There aren’t Republican bridges and there aren’t Democratic bridges and there aren’t [...]

"brand of American conservatism that hates and demeans government. And that has defined any sort of spending on anything for the common good as something that’s soft-headed and suspect. "

Here is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals/progressives. Conservatives believe that government is inherently evil, should be all but abolished, and there is no such thing as 'the common good.' Liberals/progressives believe that there IS such a thing as a common good, that there are some things that individuals, businesses, and voluntary groups cannot do, and which government should do, and that a properly and efficiently managed government has a necessary and constructive role to play in a modern, civilized society. The vast majority of Americans believe this, too!

Thus, they could never sell their anti-government, I'm alright Jack, borderline anarchist views to the public in a fair and honest debate, so they do THIS instead. They will elections on the bogus idea that they can keep government, but make it more efficient. Then, rather than eliminating it, which is what they'd like to do with it (but can't, because it would never sell to the electorate), they just make it ridiculously inefficient, so that it can't and doesn't actually DO anything. So, at the moment, the American people are saddled with an expensive government which can't actually DO anything to improve their lives. That's okay by conservatives, because it means that, in the next election cycle they can point, yet again, to how horrible and inherently evil government really is, and sell themselves as the only party that can get rid of it.

Time to call them on this! Government is expensive and useless because, and ONLY BECAUSE, CONSERVATIVES, from Reagan and Gingrich to Bush Jr. and Hasstert, have MADE it expensive and useless. And, to add insult to injury, they've made it like this for cheap, political purposes.

Comes down to the "me or we society ", doesn't it?

Maddow is funny and smart, and seeing her come close to tears shows she really cares about what she speaks about.... but what does she know about bridges? Olbermann has been relying on the same talking heads for a wide variety of news items. Maddow can't be an expert on EVERYTHING.

Got Oil ? @ 45:

too bad so sad.

just keep watching the teevee you slackjawed drooling amerikans.

Finally. A pithy comment from a 28%er.

Now i remember. Dave Stockton, the guy who came up with the "Trickle Down Theory" of economics.

I have news for you all; if it trickles down it is usually yellow and it stinks to high heaven.

LibertyLover @ 49:

xoites defends Constitution @ 47:

Somebody help me out here. Who was the Reagan adviser who said, "Americans have no right to expect anything from the American government."

He was of course refering to Americans who were unconnected to wealth and power.

Xoites! So nice to see you, again!

Nice to see you too. Have i been gone?

Zenrage @ 51:

OSC @ 8:

First off, Rachel Maddow's an idiot.
Secondly, being a libertarian, I'm for as little of government as possible. The problem here is that the vast majority of those who speak of it, act exactly the opposite. Can't pick and choose where less government should be applied. Either limit government, maintain the hypocritical image that's invisible in mirrors or accept a totalitarian state. I prefer the first choice. Most are choosing the middle. Rachel Maddow seems to want the third option.

Being a Libertarian, you're about as socially naive as Communists are economically naive.

Less government does not mean less power in the government. If you have a pitcher of water and 20 cups, each cup gets a bit of water. The Libertarian solution (if you can call it that) is to take away most the cups with the misconception that the water will automatically disappear along with it. Less government means fewer bureaucracies and fewer levels of checks and balances to protect people from abuse of power.

What government needs is more agencies, not less, to better distribute the power of governing society and better guidelines to create better bureaucracies. More government and more systems of checks and balances means less chance of corruption.

The Libertarian Party has about as much forethought as Bush's plan for the Middle East.

Perhaps more to the point, we need a society with economic clout. What creates economic clout? Taxes. There, i said it. You want to disembowel America? Cut taxes. Why are we so weak? We cut taxes for the wealthy since Reagan became President. We need a social and economic infrastructure, but we also need a to spend that money wisely to get it. Our money has been syphoned off to make the arms dealers and other specialized and not so social companies wealthy. We need to change all that.

One thing though, "Zenrage?"

Zen and rage don't even belong in the same sentence! LOL :)

Publius @ 37:

Ok. I'm a progressive and I still think outright blaming the republicans for the bridge collapse is a bit much, especially at a point where little is known about how the collapse happened.

Do I think it's deplorable that half a trillion has been spent on a staged war on terrorism? Sure do. Do I think that money could have been spent in more constructive ways? Yep. Absolutely. I'll even grant that more money spent on infrastructure may have prevented what happened in Minnesota.

But, there's a lot of assumptions being tossed around on this issue without a lot of needed info. Was it an engineering failure? Did the repairwork being done accidentally weaken the bridge? Was substandard steel used in the initial construction? I don't know anything about bridges, but I would think it would be a good idea to find the answers to questions like that before trumpeting the collapse as a political issue. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is not the way we should look at this. It makes us look worse than stupid.

Yeah, sure, I'd love to take a swipe at the deregulation/supply-side/robber baron philosophies pervading conservative politics, but until more is known about the circumstances of the collapse, this isn't the time or the place for mounting a political criticism. It's tacky, bumbling, and really insensitive.

this is exactly right. thank you. either side can spin a tragedy. we don't need political ammunition, we need answers.

I must not be a good little foot soldier Democrat, because I listen to these supposed talking head experts, then look up their background. Rachel Maddow knows nothing about infastructure, bridges, roads, or anything else except political "theories" (or BS in layman's terms). Although she is correct in this case, it isn't because she is an expert. I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of all these media morons nationally proclaiming their expertise on every damn subject that airs. You want to know about a bridge? Bring on a damn engineer or construction worker. Wanna know about Iraq? Bring on REAL Iraqis. Not some know-it-all American that makes money off talking, talking, talking. I'm fed up with all these airbags from Hannity and O'Really on the right, to the so-called experts on the left. If it wasn't for the left trying to be so damn politically correct, there wouldn't be "experts" with their own shows whos only real expertise is their color, sexual orientation, or faith (not necessarily in that damn order).

I dislike the current regime as much as the next person, but to insinuate that the "conservative movement" is the root cause for the crumbling infrastructure is rather laughable. We've had, since 1976 two Democratic presidents (12 years total) and 3 Republican presidents ( 20 years total including last few months of current one) with the majority of that 3 decade span having a Democratic controlled Congress.

And do we really need a single person to tell us that MAYBE 40 years is a bit too long to wait to refurbish or reconstruct a major bridge on a major artery of traffic. Sure, budgets might be tight (and exacerbated by complete nonsensical spending in Iraq) each fiscal year, but proper planning and having a steadfast deadline for replacing/repairing such infrastructure should NOT be a "if ya wanna" proposition. It should be mandated and someone needs to be legally accountable.

Oh, there's that word again. Accountable. That's the main thing wrong with our country - NO ONE is held accountable. It's always the other person's fault.

Thanks, KO, that explains a lot. I never realized that

'..there aren't republican sewers...'!?

So that's why they're always buried up to their lips in their own crap.

Rachel Maddow spoke from experience in her home state. She was powerful. I wish she would be a regular on one of these shows, or have her own cable show. She's brilliant.

Want the bridges to last longer? Stop buying stuff. Trucks bring it and help wreck bridges faster. Don't like that answer? Then pay more taxes , put in toll booths, or issue bonds so the next four generations pay for our infrastructure. Either way, we're all in this together in spite of what the sociopaths who are running this administration think. Privitization is their wet dream. All that is left is the snowjob from the talking heads.

OSC, thanks for the hit and run. I wish you would have stuck around and explained how your perspective could actually function in this modern world. Delete all the technological advances that surround us and the closest political relatives to Libertarians appear to be pastoralists, hunter gatherers, and nomads who don't want governmental controls and aren't really allowed to exist by modern governments except as the down-and-outers.

Total lack of government doesn't work even at the tribal level. Bottom line is that for all its apparent conveniences, technology introduces many new and exciting poisons, weapons, and opportunities to end life. And that means that to have a stable, technologically advanced society, someone needs to make sure people don't kill or poison other people for profit, Herr Cheney's temporarily elevated status not withstanding.

If one removed all technology from America--no interstate highway system, no internal combustion engine, no telephone, virtually all medicine, television, radio, computer, chemicals, transportation, weapons--we all could get along with a very small government. How much are you willing to compromise your freedoms to allow technology into your life? It's a question you answer every day. If it's not ok for psychotics to own guns, why is it ok for psychotics to own chemicals, cars or predatory businesses?

This whole question usually devolves to whether the speaker thinks they "have theirs" and damned well doesn't want anyone else to get it. The untermunchen ( or is it munchkin?) game. Which is just about as far from the US Constitutional principles as one can get. Please show me a Libertarian (or Republican, Democrat, pundit, or talk show host for that matter), preferably with children, who is absolutely destitute and wants to keep it that way.

America can count more than a few elegantly articulate speakers in its history who parsed this so all could understand, but they are out of favor right now because their "quaint" sayings of so long ago conflict too often with America's business. I haven't heard Bush jr mention Abe lately.

RE Rachel's assumed lack of an engineering degree, one can have an opinion without claiming to be an expert. You, for example, and me. That's what democracy is, for better or worse. And in a highly technical world, it may be worse.

kind of ironic, i was at a bar about 7 blocks from the collapse the night of the tragedy and they played "Under the Bridge" on the stereo....

rush @ 31:

Oh yeah! Nothing like having an "expert" like MADDOW on to talk about bridges! You've got to be kidding me!!!

Too funny! Another perfect example of faulty logic. Maddow was not brought on as an expert on bridges. She was brought on as someone who understands the implications of a conservative agenda which for political gain is willing to pervert the central tenet for which government exists, that being for undertaking things for the good of society as a whole. The neoconservative movement has demonized taxation as a whole and branded Democrats as being big government, big taxation. They have been successful to date but when America finally wakes up and sees where it has brought us... NOLA, the crumbling infrastructure etc., these scoundrels and their like will be ousted from office for a long long time. It boils down very simply... How can you justify spending over half a trillion dollars , waste the lives of thousands of Americans, maim tens of thousands more, and kill or be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis .... for no apparent GAIN WHATSOEVER... while America is screaming out for work to be done with the infrastructure, and social programs, education, and working toward decreased dependence on foreign energy... Maddow is right, it is a national disgrace.

Interesting thread here. I am a Minneapolitan and am proud of how the local first responders reacted to this bridge collapse. The survival rate is nothing short of miraculous.

I do believe, however, that this tragedy underscores the misplaced priorities of our state and national "leaders". Minnesota's governor vetoed a gas tax recently while, at the same time, supporting the building of a new baseball stadium for the billionaire Twins owner. Misplaced priorities.

GDumbya's dirty little avoidable war in Iraq has distracted the Federal government from investing here at home in our own country. Instead, we have used our wealth to break things in Iraq and then try unsuccessfully to put them back together again. Misplaced priorities.

New Orleans has been mentioned by other posters as another example. I agree. Let me add another -- the power grid failure in the Northeast in 2002. I really do wonder how effective the "fix" was for this problem and how soon it will be before another failure occurs.

We (the U.S.) need to get our own house in order before presuming to tell the rest of the world how to run their lives.

Yes, both parties are involved, but I suggest to you that it's not so much a party thing as a philosophical one. Here is my thinking. Before Reagan came along with his "I hate government" policies, we did tend to take care of things like bridges and roads. I remember seeing news stories on it fairly frequently during those years, because some of the work was kind of interesting. Since Reagan, there has been this whole move towards seeing gov't as the problem, and not a solution of any kind. Is it any wonder that it has turned into EXACTLY that?

The problem is an attitude that says that you can have everything and pay for nothing. William Kristol and Grover Norquist are the types of arrogant, slimy lie merchants that spew this lying bilge water. For some reason, it's been accepted, and even parrotted by the MSM (BIG surprise there, seeing as how those making money off of our destrouction are the only ones who won any of it anymore). The propoganda has been catapulted quite effectively.

We have to get away from this "ME or NOBODY" kind of foolishness, it's costing us lives, and if you look at it's roots, doesn't even come from a particularly American source. Look into Ayn Rand and the Ayn Rand society if you want to know what I mean by that. We have to start remembering that we, as Americans, have a legacy that stretches back to some great, thoughtful, insightful men and women, and it's in OUR genes and OUR blood to live up to that legacy. We can either continue down this road of sociopathic self destruction, or we can reject that and start making this country work for ALL of us again, not just for the top 2%.

The first step is to wake up to the class war that was declared on us by the top few back in 1981. Start by rescinding the REAGAN tax cuts, let alone the W tax cuts. Start demanding that the rich be part of this country instead of just benefitting from it's policies. We need to stop this empirical view of things that has gotten us into such a negative situation in the middle east, and start taking care of business and each other here instead. Let other countries figure out heir own issues. We need to fix our OWN house.

"We’re a country that, as a whole, is paying this incredible, deadly price for a brand of American conservatism that hates and demeans government."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......

OMG, this has got to be the dumbest thing ever said on C&L. American conservatism is NOT the cause of all the problems we are facing. It is the ideologies behind the current conservative government who ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES AT ALL!!!!!!! They are doing averything they can to INCREASE THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

It is NOT a hatred of government. This hatred is actually a deep mistrust, which quite frankly is JUSTIFIED in its entirety. I say screw you to whoever STILL thinks government can be "good". Look at the GOP. Look at the Dems. These two groups of people are taking government to BIGGER sizes and BIGGER influences. They are ruining the country, NOT because they both do not take good government seriously. NO. They are ruining the country because they both think government is the answer to all our problems.

What is this C&L, a last ditch effort to justify your own misplaced faiths that have now created all our problems????

The reason why things are getting so shitty is because we are NOT rejecting more government, but are accepting more and are complacent of more. How many people do you see going out and protesting the increasing size of the Bush administration???

I find it highly disturbing, but not surprising, that those people who have advocated more government for so many years for everything from more welfare to more education to more corporate oversight, and are now reaping the results of that ideology, to now turn face and blame those who have been saying all along that more government is bad. The guilty who blame the victims for what is wrong is sooooooo typical of those who are WRONG!!!!!!

Those who "hate" the government KNOW that they cannot be trusted. Even those IN GOVERNMENT who claim to be all about small government and saying to the public "do not trust government", are ALL ABOUT MORE GOVERNMENT, NOT LESS....

It is a very sad state of affairs to see that those who have been saying all along to shrink the government to now actually be blamed for what a bigger government has done.

Conservative movement to hate government? Hardly. It is a movement towards complacency and a "whatever" mentality. Who cares if hundreds of thousands of people are dying in Iraq which is the fault of GOVERNMENT, as long as we all have our jobs?? Who cares is we are being spied on as long as we don't have anything to hide from GOVERNMENT!?!?!?

Do you really think that a hatred of government would result in the government now having carte blanche ability to spy on you??? If the government were "hated", then this wouldn't happen.

Geez Louise!!!!

Estevan Alzonck @ 75:

"The corporation, which is supposed to make your life wonderful and euphoric, does nothing but destroy the earth and earn lots of money for itself (with no trickle-down to you)."

No. You are wrong. Corporations provide your clothes, your food, your housing, and your entertainment. Corporations are also better for the environment because they shape and change the Earth to better suit human life. Without corporations, people in New Mexico for example would be sleeping on rocks with rattlesnakes and scorpions lurking around, but thankfully the housing, the air conditioning and the fresh water that corporations have created allows New Mexico residents to live comfortably. The environment in New Mexico is therefore BETTER off than before.

There IS "trickle down" operating, but it is not corporations that prevent it. It is the government who prevents the trickle down from taking place by taking money away from corporations and wage earners by taxes and by budget deficits. The result of taxes and budget deficits is higher corporate profits (as antithetical as it seems), because the money that corporations WOULD HAVE spent themselves on things like capital and labor (which increases business costs and hence decreases profits) instead get diverted to government coffers, who either spend the money themselves or give it to people who in turn spend the money which then show up as revenues in the economic system. The result is higher revenues and lower costs which cause higher profits at the same time that our standard of living goes down. People blame business when they should be blaming government.

http://www.mises.org/story/2668

A sane look at the bridge collapse

Iraqis will see how quickly American contractors can move when they are interested.

[Deleted. Off topic and abusive to other posters]

A whole bunch of you people need to read the American Society of Civil Engineers report of 2005. As the Idiot in Chief says do that Google thing. They have been warning us for years but the prostitutes on both sides of the fence have ignored it. Ain't no charisma in rebuilding a sewer system or a bridge. The person who mentioned us becoming a second class country is spot on. What a poor country we are indeed when we base our greatness on the GDP and our military might. Just like most empires at the end. Build big monuments and the best military. Our Constitution mentions that the welfare and safety of the PEOPLE is one of its main tenants. Oh and why the federal govt has to take the blame, they have cut funding for all types of infrastructure to the bone and we are crumbling, and it will get worse. They suck our tax dollars and ship them to the Merchants of Death who are the men behind the curtain.

Pull your heads out of the sand and see what they are doing. Oh careful Georgie's boys may be monitoring our little confab.

"Private Freedom, the Corpse are eating us alive and we are winning the race to the bottom. They are soulless entities whose only legal action is to maximize profits."

First of all, what's with using the word "corpse" as if corporations are dead? What is dead is your views on them. Which organizations, then, have "soul"? Souls do not exist by the way, only naive demogogues could think souls exist. If corporations do not have a "soul", then what does and why? Why do you view things this way? Maximizing profits is not an evil thing. You do it yourself. Everyone of us does it, everyday. We do it when we consider which goods to buy, where we buy them, as well as, and most importantly, which jobs we accept in the marketplace. If searching for the highest paid job based on your qualifications is valid, then so is profit making. If profiot making is invalid, then so is searching for the highest paid job. What's that? They are different things? No they are not. They both are about getting as much money as one can. This is perfectly and completely natural. There is nothing wrong with this. There is only good. The problems that you THINK exist in profit making are not actually problems with profit making, but something else.

"Our founding fathers forbid them because they had seen them eating other parts of the world and parts of North America."

Um, hate to tell you this, but they did NOT forbid profit making. They were FOR profit making.

"Corpse were closely regulated and were given limited charters to build mostly public works projects."

This "closely regulated" BS is actually a euphamism for what is called "corporatism", or legalized monopolies. There was NOTHING moral in this. The government and corporations during the "New Deal" spawned a sick and twisted view of business/government relationships. It was all about privilege and favors, not free competition. Building public works projects? Bah, the leader of this philosophy thought pyramid building was good for the economy. Complete and utter hogwash.

"When the Monster was given life in the Supreme Court decision of the County of Santa Clara vs the Union Pacific Railroad, evil was unleashed upon the world. It has all the rights but none of the responsibilities of a flesh and blood human."

You sound like Lenin.

"Don't for one minute think that the Saint of the Free Marketers, Adam Smith, would have anything to do with these monstrous creations who are eating us alive."

I don't. I don't because Adam Smith was NOT a sint of the free market. He was the most free market economist of the time, but he was VERY socialistic. Most people think he was free market because of what they learned in school.

"Have you read the book or just the Dush Dimbaugh version?"

Read it. Also, Dush Dimbaugh is a Ducking Dasshole.