We know that recently, neocons have tried to submerge other traditional Conservatives with the likes of inferring gays, atheists, and perhaps the vast number of unchurched are the "next" in terrorism; we don't why yet, but one assumes this is because if say one Ay-rab or Muzz-Lim commits an infernal act(s), obviously then their entire collectivity is to be invidiously treated because...what with the poor economy and all...obviously EVERYBODY might be working together, simply sending ahead "front-man test actors", which is why we let such folks wander around to see where they lead, including to possibly fake vital statistic records, folks who fall for spam "Nigerian 419" 'commission job'/lottery/inheritance scams, who knows...and never you mind why say the Army of God  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA) , which has been known to do violence to abortion clinics and workers, does NOT attach to each and every religious or other person in the USA who does not like abortion.

 

Actually, at least when it comes to their own, neocons can see...quite properly...that their entire base and target media audiences globally are NOT to be presumed as a "mafia" likely supporting the acts of a few loose cannons. Naturally, that extends to ANY collective(s) not prima facie formed or naturally occurring to BE armies or criminal enterprises; in the case of GITMO, and just how many Islamic terrorists are there Bush or Chertoff would have be detained, when, from where? Even Amnesty International seems correct to say set all GITMO cases for whatever trials, chips fall as they may for defendants, or release them; just GITMO the way it stands obviously hasn't done much to stem nations like Pakistan from using captured Qaedans et al to destabilze(?) Pashtun Afghanis, or look too hard for anti-India terrorists in Pakistan while receiving USA foreign aid...more seems necessary from the current White House in re what GITMO prisoners do, why GITMO is SO instrumental in the war on terror. It may be, but opinion evidence seems worn threadbare at present...with BUSH insistance all along of open borders not even Ramos or Compean should have defended against even drug lords "valuable"(?) to Mexico and Bush, as BRAC ( http://www.brac.gov/ ) marches on. 

 

As to bailouts, come on! Even GOP Governor Perry (R-TX) and Governor Sanford (R-SC) were on FOX together the other day saying the era of leveraged everything HAS to end...this applies to all from Tribunes to stock markets to auto makers and beyond, and it's not just a Left, Center, Right position, is it? Likely, it's because folks get laid off even when their employer IS bailed, and this simply adds to the vast majority already not able to afford whatever in the first place, thus making "will hurt jobs, worsen YOUR personal economy if I don't write my own ticket and take YOUR cash to pay it" sound awfully tinny. Maybe there is a reason(s) this or that bailout(s) did or should occur, but like GITMO, the "whys" need some more polishing.

 

One hopes neocons will stop making ALL Conservatives look silly, and do better with why staying all courses is cost-effective, grows personal economies with less insecurity for little people and big people alike, and is most likely to keep neutered jihadists and others who think Allah or whatever God(s) want(s) some people killed or maimed who don't listen to "clergy who know that and have God's gift of relevant sheep and goat discernments". In the meantime, let's at least give Obama and the new Congress the same chance we have all 43 Presidents and all Congresses before them...so we HAVE something to support or criticize that MIGHT then be relevant to all of us? 

 

In that spirit of fairness, I myself presently find I can find nothing wrong yet with Obama's latest thought on change re the economy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11gmqODMX44&eurl=http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/secretary_of_housing_and_urban_development_announced_in_weekly_address/