Afternoon Open Thread
Here are some stories that are floating around out there:
- John McCain voted against establishing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday as a federal holiday in 1983.
- Wal-Mart backed off a lawsuit against the family of a brain-damaged former employee.
- McCain in January: Basra "not a problem."
Chat away...
Comments (98) «
g'afternoon, everyone. last week on the charile rose show, shell oil president john hofmeister let the cat out of the bag without really realizing the implications of what he said. he commented that his company is, losely quoted, "in the business of supplying energy to the world". so, in a few short words, mr. hofmeister laid bare the central most egregious aspect of the 'global economy'; multinational corporations have NO national responsibility. for this reason alone, governments should look critically at the activities and actions of these corporations and apply regulatory pressures when ever national welfare is threatened. big oil has clearly demonstrated its callous indeference toward the plight of our country's people and our national economy. its time now we demonstrate to big oil and all other multinationals that they no longer have a 'free pass' to do business as they please without regard to public consequences.
Posted by 5097 on April 2, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Then you wake up from your demented dream.As long as Mcain associates himself with the unpopular Bushfurer he doesn't have a chance!
Posted by margotb822 on April 2, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I don't have time to fully explain. I will simply say that because Hispanic voters counted less than African-American voters, it is a civil rights issue. Can you imagine if white voters counted more AA voters. "Yeah, AA had more voters turn up, but because white voters count more, the whites won." You don't think this would be a civil rights issue? Rush would say that's the way it is.
Also, I'm proposing that Hispanic groups, with a coalition, take this issue to court. We both know that people would spin the Hispanic rights issue into a "Hillary stole it" thing. You don't think it's unfair that Hillary won the popular vote in the primary, likely had as many or more causes go-ers, but because the process counted urban voters more than rural voters, the outcome was changed? Explain that one to me? bbl.
Have a good day.
Posted by Big_Yellow_Dog on April 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Well, I had a great post, but it didn't appear, so I'll try again.
What you are describing is a regional issue, not a race issue. We can't say that hispanics were targeted because they live in a certain region. Delegates are awarded based on the votes of previous elections, not on race or gender. We can't say that the results would be different if AA lived in largely rural areas.
Also, the Presidential election is decided based on a population proportion, so that states with large populations are given a greater number of votes because they have more people voting. This is the same idea with the caucuses. The regions with greater populations are given a greater proportion of the vote. What you are basically proposing is to count their votes less than rural people's votes. Sounds like the 3/5 compromise to me?
As far as winning the vote, and speaking of Rush, he is the one who encouraged Repubs to crossover and vote for Clinton. There is evidence that this helped boost Clinton in the election, but these people, who are not actual supporters, did not participate in the election. And, if Clinton supporters were so hindered in the caucus process, as you say they were, I find it hard to believe that Clinton had more supporters at the caucuses.
More over, you still haven't explained how eliminating the caucuses would be protecting the votes of the people. The fact is, the caucuses represent 1/3 of the process. You can't just take away the part of it that doesn't support your candidate. And, no matter how you dress it up, it would still be Clinton trying to get the process to favor her (and, if primaries do favor her, and they account for 2/3 of the process, it would see that the process does favor her). If the shoe were on the other foot, there would be no call for Clinton to "protect the hispanic vote" if it meant that she might lose a delegate or two. However, Obama could challenge the primary result in the face of the number of Republicans who voted for Clinton.
But, really, what does Clinton have to gain from this battle? Four delegates? And what does she have to lose? Everything, especially credibility considering that she would be trying to get rid of some of the results, in the name of protecting results. It's beyond hypocritical.
The time to change the primary process is in before elections, not after the results come out. And the state party is responsible, not the courts.
I'm also disturbed that you seem to be ignoring all the other information that shows supporters of other candidates were disadvantaged and that supporters of your candidate were doing their best to block the results.
10:30 AM 4/2/08
Ijust watched "the dance of the cranes" performed by the House/Senate Joint Banking Committee and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke regarding the "credit crunch" and the possibility of a US recession. Bernanke refused to advise congress regarding what actions they should presenly be taking. That's fine. He has no obligation to be responsible for what they do, or do not do. That is entirely up to them. What disurbed me was that nobody asked, and Bernanke did not volunteer, who would wind-up owning all the foreclosed property. the answer is, of course, the bank shareholders. The already-rich. All of the wealth "lost" in the crisis will be accumulated and concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few at the expense of the suckers who signed-up for mortgages deliberately engineered to be unpayable. That's why this whole thing is a fraud, a theft, a crime against the people by the corrupt, ruthless rich. Congress should certainly address that and correct it, forthwith. Start thinking, and stay active!
Dean offered an olive branch to Florida today, saying they wanted to seat their delegates...offering them hotel rooms.
But I believe he made the DNC stance clear on CNN last night:
Dean on CNN: "we are not going to bend the rules for either side."
this is a repost but as quinnipiac has a pretty respected polling operation i thought it worth the second look:
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 50, Obama 41 Clinton +9
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 40, Clinton 48, Und 8 Clinton +8
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 43, Und 11 Obama +4
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 42, Clinton 44, Und 8 Clinton +2
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 46, Obama 37, Und 9 McCain +9
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 43, Und 8 Obama +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 39, Clinton 48, Und 8
Posted by 5097 on April 2, 2008 at 02:00 PM
That would be left up to you and your fellow kkk friends.
Repost:
That has been a major problem for Dems. The pugs have been controlling the airwaves for years, spreading their puke all over the nation. We need to counter that by increasing our own message on the airwaves.
The problem with the pug party is that it is broken into five segments that contradict one another and we have an opportunity to move into their base.
One - The relious right. The pugs own this base on one issue, Abortion. The area they conflict with here is that yes, they may be against abortion, but they have no alternative to support the lives of these unwanted children once they are born. They are anti any social programs to help unwed mothers or low income people. Religion tells us to 'Love thy neighbor' and 'care for the poor and needy,' both anti pug views.
Dem solution - Dems value all life, not just the unborn. How do you think we got the nickname 'Bleeding heart liberals.' Abortions are necessary until we find a way to support all life, to give it a chance to succeed. Not just be raised as an abused, unwanted child. We are also the party that wants to secure a future for our children by taking care of our environment.
Two - Pro Big Business and Corporation - This section of the pug party was once for the family farmers and small business, NO MORE. Now the pugs do everything they can to have the corporations take control of all business done in the US.
Dem solution - Dems work towards a good working relationship between employers and workers and are currently working to reduce the burden of Health insureance that has crippled our small businesses. Dems understand that worker safety and job satisfaction actually reduces costs for businesses. The survival for the family business and family farm are imparative to the survival of our economy and we work to secure their future.
Three - Fiscal Responsibility - Since the Reagan and Bush Sr. error, they have completely thrown this out the window. Now, their policy is to give huge tax breaks to the rich and move the burden to the middle class and use deficit spending to pay for their big government.
Dem Solution - This is now a democratic issue. We are the ones that work for a fair tax base that shares the burden evenly. We are the party that works towards a balanced budget and reducing the National and Foreign debts.
Four - Smaller Government - No longer a pug issue. Reagan and both Bushes grew the government under their errors. Bush jr. grew it in one area by adding 'Faith based initiatives' What the hell is that? and Whose faith are we basing initiatives on? What happened to the first amendment? you know, freedom of religion.
Dem Solution - We will remove unneeded departments like 'faith based initiatives' and organize the government to colaborate better between the departments.
Five - Military and foreign Relations - This Bush administration has torn apart our relationships around the world with the exception of Communist China, where we now support the human rights violations and unsafe work condition of its people and its crack down on religion. We have been led into a war on false pretenses for the purpose of personal gain of this administration.
Dem Solution - In both of the last Democratic Presidencies we have been a leader in the world, working towards middle east peace and securing our relations around the world. We have proven ourselves on the battlefield with the short but successful operation in Bosnia and elsewhere. We are the party that can restore America's good name around the world.
These are the issues that we need to move into the republican base and reform the masses to the true human condition and become Democrats.
If we talk to them, they will listen. (At least most will listen.)
Posted by goober-s on April 2, 2008 at 02:03 PM
HAHAHAHAH that is funny!!First I'm a bigot than I'm a troll!!Man You must fear me.Get a life loser.
Posted by gregg on April 2, 2008 at 02:05 PM
i noticed the rcp average shows obama has slipped a bit with mclame +2.0 ahead. hillary is showing an even tie against mcmuck.
Posted by goober-s on April 2, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Witch one of you is it this time? fartleymcturd or cactasshole?Man you guys are pathetic!
You must fear me.Get a life loser. Posted by peaceman on April 2, 2008 at 02:15 PM
they fear what we represent, peaceman. We are about to take this country back, and that makes these sore losers just oooze sour grapes! They see it coming! And it kills them! LOL!
And no where, do they see a similar effort anywhere on the Red sites. IN FACT, checking out even the most vile Red sites, you see a couple of posts per day now. There used to be a couple hundred per day, back a few years ago. Now, the Repubs have lost heart, or are switching to Dems and Independents, because they see how disgusting the Republican Party has become.
I have quite a list of Republican crooks, corrupt ones, and Perverted ones:
http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2005/11/republican-criminals.html
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
http://hackenbush.org/hackenblog/blogives/00002689.htm
http://recoveringliberal.com/?p=593
http://www.republicancorruption.com/
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/gopcorruption.html
http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html
Obama will be on the Ed Schultz Show in 5 minutes.
Is going to a muslim blog bad? Maybe he's muslim. Or maybe he's just trying to understand the religion and it's followers.
NASCAR must be on commercial.
WALLINGFORD, PA (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says as president he would consider putting Al Gore in a Cabinet-level position—or higher. A woman at a town hall asked the Illinois senator if elected president would he consider tapping the former vice president for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to address global warming."I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues but climate change is real."
Gore, who's work on climate change earned him a Nobel Prize, he is popular among Democrats.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
I wonder if the junior senator from NY is willing to make such a committment? United Nations Secretary General Gore has a nice ring to it...
Goobers,
I think you've got enough nuts for the whole site. Aren't you made of nuts anyway.
Poor old woman, why don't you others send her a care package.
Posted by 5097 on April 2, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Your'e so sweet.
But I get those at the soup kitchen. They are the same ones we've been sending to the troops in Iraq.
I wonder if Pat Robertson would be willing to sell his "church" diamond mines in Africa to make sure that we all can get through the Bush nightmare with a little bit of cheer?
Bill Clinton's tirade stunned some delegatesPhillip Matier,Andrew Ross
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.
In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.
"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.
According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.
"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."
When he finally wound down, Bill was asked what message he wanted the delegates to take away from the meeting.
At that point, a much calmer Clinton outlined his message of party unity.
"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.
"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."
When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened.
Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/02/BAVNVU2PJ.DTL&type=printable
If the junior senator from NY loses her POTUS bid, it is for one reason and one reason only, her husband. As much as I hate to admit it, I've lost a significant amount of respect for President Clinton during the primaries.
Twenty bucks says the junior senator from NY files for divorce by 4JUL09.
Posted by BoilerMan on April 2, 2008 at 02:20 PM
No, that must be a typo. On the website it shows McCain ahead by 0.2%, which is a statistical tie.
And if you click into the links, you would see that by averaging in the next poll down, Obama would be ahead. Same with Clinton. It's a fact that they chose five polls versus six or seven to average.
http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/
multinational corporations have NO national responsibility.
Posted by BoilerMan on April 2, 2008 at 01:49 PM
BoilerMan,
And a lot of Republicans operate in the same way.
Working on the technical issues. Sorry everybody, please continue to be patient. (I'm out sick today)
Good afternoon.it looks like the invasion of the cretins has commenced this afternoon.
Oh for Pete's sake, this should have never gotten out of the legal limbo of the courts? It's just too darn conflicting with the false narrative of every vote counts. It makes too many people cross-eyed when they consider something that shakes and hammers at their comfort zone.
---------------
After Two Years, the Qui Tam Suit Against Hart InterCivic, Brought by Whistleblower William Singer with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mike Papantonio, May Proceed After DoJ Declines to Join Case
*****
Mr. Singer frequently accompanied Hart representatives to perform demonstrations, testing, and support maintenance of the machines in various locations, and thus heard firsthand a number of misstatements made by Hart in its attempts to win voting system contracts, as well as misstatements made to conceal the voting machines’ frailties and vulnerabilities. In January 2004, Mr. Singer resigned from Hart under protest, citing many of the fraudulent acts and misrepresentations giving rise to this action. In July 2004, Mr. Singer wrote the Secretaries of State for the States of Texas and Ohio, to alert them to Hart’s misconduct. He received no substantive response. Mr. Singer provided discrete bits of information to the press in hopes of attracting attention to Hart’s misconduct. Having “accomplished nothing” in Mr. Singer’s words, he decided to seek legal redress.
*****
"If I, a single person, can report on so many problems, so many types of serious problems, in only one company...and if my complaints were being systematically ignored, deliberately ignored, by every single secretary of state and election official across the ENTIRE nation...If not one person of authority, of any kind, asked me one single question to help them make their own decisions about which voting machine vendor to do business with, I think any reasonable person would be extremely alarmed."
"How many other people, other problems, serious problems, have been concealed, 'lost', and ignored?," Singer wrote today. "If one person can report on so many serious problems, and those problems were deliberately hidden by so many officials for so long - how much of this iceberg is still under water? Not just with Hart, or even Hart and I, but in the entire industry?"
Cracks May Be Showing in Clinton's Pennsylvania Firewall
Obama moved into a 45 percent to 43 percent lead over Hillary Clinton in a March 31-April 1 survey conducted by Public Policy Polling. While the lead is not statistically significant -- the margin of error is 2.8 percent -- it marks the first time in any of the polls taken there this year that Obama has caught up to Clinton, who had enjoyed double-digit leads most of the way. Two polls yesterday had Clinton still ahead, but both noted erosion in her support. The last PPP poll a little over two weeks ago had Clinton ahead by 26 points.
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri will soon answer the hundreds of questions submitted by journalists, militants and others about the terrorist network's future, its media wing announced Wednesday. A banner bearing the logo of the Al-Qaida's media arm, al-Sahab, appeared on Web sites linked to the organization that have carried its messages in the past."Soon the surprise," read the flashing banner, which showed a picture of the Egyptian-born militant dressed in white wearing a turban. "Soon by the grace of God, the open interview with Sheik Ayman Zawahri, first episode."
Al-Sahab announced in December that al-Zawahri would take questions from the public posted on Islamic militant Web sites and would respond "as soon as possible."
More than 900 entries—many with multiple questions—were posted on the main Islamist Web site until the cutoff date of Jan. 16. After the deadline, the questions disappeared from that site.
Self-proclaimed al-Qaida supporters appeared to be as much in the dark about the terror network's operations and intentions as Western analysts and intelligence agencies are.
The questioners appeared uncertain whether al-Qaida's central leadership directly controls the multiple, small militant groups around the Mideast that work in its name, or whether those groups operate on their own.
Some asked if al-Qaida have a long-term strategy, while others wanted advice about conducting holy war.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
My God, does Republican incompetence know no bounds? Al-Qaeda is in good enough shape to do webcasts!? Yet we sit in the quagmire of Iraq while this goes on using only a fifth of the troops that we do in Iraq to look for the real enemies of 11SEP01, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and UBL.
It's official. The Military is broken. Here comes the 'D' word.
Heck of a job. How are we going to staff McCain's 100 year Iraq occupation and start the Iran war on April 6?
Clinton's no Rocky, Obama tells trade unionists
Obama, in his speech to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), which counts 10 million members, said it was time to "play offense" for decent wages and universal healthcare.
"We all love Rocky, and last time I checked I was the underdog in this state," the Illinois senator said after Clinton, addressing the AFL-CIO here on Tuesday, likened herself to Sylvester Stallone's indomitable boxer.
"But Rocky was a movie. And so is the idea that someone can fight for working people and at the same time, embrace the broken system in Washington," Obama said to approving guffaws.
Posted by MichaelLink on April 2, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Michael,
Sounds like you could use one of 5097's care packages. We can limp along till you feel better.
Honey with lemon in green tea cures just about everything. Your grandmother's (or Campbell's) soup takes care of everything else. And a shot of whiskey makes it all go down better.
Another Endorsement;Wyoming governor back Obama
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, announced Wednesday that he will support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.
"They paid attention and were riveted and reactivated, and trying to be part of an America that's bigger than just their own self-interest," Freudenthal told The Associated Press. "And you hope that can work. Because something has got to dig us out of this morass that we've gotten into, where it's sort of gotcha politics."
Posted by MichaelLink on April 2, 2008 at 02:48 PM
I'm sure I speak for my fellow Democratic bloggers when I say we all hope you feel better soon.
My God, does Republican incompetence know no bounds?
Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 2, 2008 at 03:02 PM
I think it's like the universe: constantly expanding at an ever increasing rate.
LOL, I am enjoying this book about Conservatives:
Some frequently asked questions:
HOW DOES SOMEONE BECOME A CONSERVATIVE ?
a) generally speaking, it starts with sexual frustration, blossoms into anger, and pretty soon you want to cut taxes.
Q? REPUBLICANS COME UP WITH A LOT OF PHRASES LIKE "COMPAASSIONATE CONSERVATISM", 'LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND", CLEAR SKIES" AND HEALTHY FORESTS" TO DISGUISE THEIR DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES. DO THEY REALLY EXPECT PEOPLE TO BUY THAT ORWELLIAN NONSENSE?
A) As George W. Bush once said, "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
q) HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT I WILL BE SHOT BY AN ARMED REPUBLICAN?
a) Unless you are driving a hybrid car through the South with bumper stickers that say "Hillary for President", "Amnesty for Illegals," Just Gay Married", or "I've come to Liberate you from your Guns", it's fairly unlikely !
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, praising his ability to transcend partisan division and calling his foreign policy outlook "pragmatic, visionary, and tough."Hamilton, who during a three-decade House career rose to be chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, also was vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. His endorsement could boost the Democratic hopeful's national security standing.
"Barack Obama has the best opportunity to create a new sense of national unity and to transcend divisions within this country, not by ignoring them or smoothing them over, but by working together with candor and civility to meet our challenges," Hamilton said in a statement released by Obama's campaign.
On Obama's foreign policy stance, Hamilton said: "He will work with our friends and allies. Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people."...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080402/D8VPPHV02.html
I couldn't have said it better.
How many other people, other problems, serious problems, have been concealed, 'lost', and ignored?," Singer wrote today. "If one person can report on so many serious problems, and those problems were deliberately hidden by so many officials for so long - how much of this iceberg is still under water? Not just with Hart, or even Hart and I, but in the entire industry?"
Posted by TomN on April 2, 2008 at 02:48 PM
TomN,
The Republicans truly don't nor care about the long-term interests of this country.
Once they pledged alliegence to the oil states and multinational commodities brokers, The United States of American ceased to exist in their minds and fell off their radar screen.
Any acknowledemnt that sometime might be rotten in the State of Denmark is to be avoided at all costs. If you cover up, denny, or ignore all problems, they no longer exist for those who are suppose to be in charge of things.
Create your own reality.
bbl.
No, that must be a typo. On the website it shows McCain ahead by 0.2%, which is a statistical tie.
Posted by margotb822 on April 2, 2008 at 02:48 PM
you're right. my mistake. sorry. i'm curious though how it is they arrive at an average anyway. as i recall, averages of percentages aren't cricket unless arrived at from the combined raw data.
Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 2, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Bob,
Perhaps we can send our trolls over to their website? I assume they would torture them before they slit their throats?
If only Bush had trusted our special forces to go in after Bin Lauden at Tora Bora instead of hiring the Taliban to flush him out? But Republicans always believe that privatizing is cheaper and more productive.
Posted by PamB on April 2, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Great post! the world could use more like you!
Media ownership and fairness, and election reform, the two crucial issues to that need reform to get voter comfidence back into play. What happened to the dem congress that was working on these?
Why can't Clinton and Obama come out swinging on these problems and kick congress into action? Are they incapable of criticism here because of fund raising aspirations? Come on, give democracy a chance.
------------
Keep the Republic
Now is the time to start standing tough for fair elections
By ROBERT C. KOEHLER
Tribune Media Services
March 27, 2008
The ground feels a little soft, but we’re going to stand it.
Premise one: Having a fair election — all votes counted, all who are eligible and want to vote allowed to vote — is far, far more important, even in 2008, than who wins.
Premise two: Fair elections are not a given. They never have been, but things are worse now than ever before because of a perfect storm, you might say, of factors that have converged in the new millennium: officialdom’s seduction by unsafe, high-tech voting systems; the seizure of power by a party of ruthless true believers who feel entitled to rule and will do anything to win; a polite, confused opposition party that won’t make a stink about raw injustice; and an arrogantly complacent media embedded in the political and economic status quo.
commonwonders.com/archives/col439.htm
-little politeness and confusion around here, though, I reckon.
Impeach these imperial frauds.
Posted by SandyH on April 2, 2008 at 03:21 PM
Of course their allegiance isn't to the US. Many of they are members of the tri lateral commission whose end goal is one world governance and economy.
The Trilateral Commission was founded by the persistent maneuvering of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and "endowment funds" and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as "policy guidelines" for the Trilateral Commission.
This is a little lenghty but read it anyway.
Submitted by Nick Egnatz on Wed, 2008-04-02 18:31.
Please deliver this message to the Judiciary Committee.
Thoughts on Iraq, Iran and U.S. Empire
The failure of the Democratic Congress to initiate impeachment hearings for the President and Vice President has left the American people with a broken government and all the peoples of the world in jeopardy because the rule of law is no longer even given token consideration by the world’s military superpower.
U.S. military commander in charge of the Middle East, William Fallon resigns after publicly stating that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," this from a Russian Intelligence official.
After Cheney’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors,"
The aircraft carrier battle group USS John C Stennis, with its 80 fixed-wing aircraft, crew of 3,200, 8 support ships and 4 nuclear submarines is steaming to the Persian Gulf to join a similar battle group led by the USS Dwight D Eisenhower.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.
The failure of the Bush offensive ‘surge’ in Iraq is underscored by the subsequent failure of the Maliki government’s military offensive against Moktada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Maliki broke the cease fire that Sadr had imposed upon himself and which was the major reason for a decrease in violence in Iraq. Bush announced his enthusiastic support for the offensive claiming it would be a “defining moment”. Maliki went to Basra to personally direct the offensive as the US occupation army supported it with air power. Iraq observers recognized it as move at the political power of al Sadr who currently controls the largest bloc in Iraq’s Parliament before the upcoming October elections. Government forces deserted and Maliki was forced to flee Basra where he had been personally directing the fighting. Demonstrators by the thousands chant for the US to leave Iraq. A parliamentary delegation from Maliki’s own coalition negotiates a cease fire with Sadr and the US is left supporting a government which cannot govern and an army which cannot defeat a popular militia and its leader.
Moktada al Sadr who has been demonized by the US Administration for years has come out of this offensive looking more and more like the kind of nationalist that Iraq needs to unite the country. Of course his first demand is that the US occupation forces must leave. It was Sadr who called the cease fire which resulted in the appearance that the ‘surge’ was somehow working to our non-inquisitive press. It was Sadr who has for years been able to mobilize huge peaceful demonstrations. It was Sadr whose followers peacefully passed out olive branches and copies of the Koran to soldiers on the other side. Our government’s problem with Sadr is that he stands for a strong central government and Iraqi reconciliation and not for some division of the country into sectarian states. He stands for Iraqi control of Iraqi oil and not for the proposed Iraqi Oil Law which will allow for the privatization of more than 80% of Iraqi oil fields and subsequent profits to Western oil companies to the tune of more than $20 trillion over the 30 year span of the Production Sharing Agreements featured in the Oil Law.
One is left to wonder if the offensive was not meant to pave the way for an attack on Iran and now that it has failed that the Bush Regime may not feel all the more, the necessity to ‘double down’ and attack Iran.
Of course there is no legal reason to go to war with Iran, just as there was no legal reason to invade Iraq. The US is an imperial power and it will attack who it wants, when it wants to, for whatever reasons those in power have, without the slightest regard for morality, federal or international law or the will of people, either in the US, the country being attacked or anywhere else in the world. Evidence of this attitude was on display recently when V.P. Cheney on a TV news show recently was told by his interviewer that 2/3 of Americans disagree with the Administration’s Iraq policy and he replied “So.”
Can the US Congress find the will to impeach the criminals in charge of our government before they attack Iran? Or will they continue their criminal acquiescence if Bush goes before the TV cameras with trumped up charges against Iran as our planes are delivering their deadly payloads on yet more innocent people?
Nick Egnatz
Munster, IN
NW Indiana Veterans For Peace
Centers Tap Into Personal Databases State Groups Were Formed After 9/11By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 2, 2008; A01Intelligence centers run by states across the country have access to personal information about millions of Americans, including unlisted cellphone numbers, insurance claims, driver's license photographs and credit reports, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
One center also has access to top-secret data systems at the CIA, the document shows, though it's not clear what information those systems contain.
Dozens of the organizations known as fusion centers were created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to identify potential threats and improve the way information is shared. The centers use law enforcement analysts and sophisticated computer systems to compile, or fuse, disparate tips and clues and pass along the refined information to other agencies. They are expected to play important roles in national information-sharing networks that link local, state and federal authorities and enable them to automatically sift their storehouses of records for patterns and clues.
Though officials have publicly discussed the fusion centers' importance to national security, they have generally declined to elaborate on the centers' activities. But a document that lists resources used by the fusion centers shows how a dozen of the organizations in the northeastern United States rely far more on access to commercial and government databases than had previously been disclosed.
Those details have come to light at a time of debate about domestic intelligence efforts, including eavesdropping and data-aggregation programs at the National Security Agency, and whether the government has enough protections in place to prevent abuses.
The list of information resources was part of a survey conducted last year, officials familiar with the effort said. It shows that, like most police agencies, the fusion centers have subscriptions to private information-broker services that keep records about Americans' locations, financial holdings, associates, relatives, firearms licenses and the like...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040103049_pf.html
And George Orwell said, "See, I told you so." And folks call me paranoid for cutting up all of my credit cards, closing all of my bank accounts, using pre-paid cell phones, and using nothing but cash. Privacy died at the dawn of the computer age.
Posted by PamB on April 2, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Pam,
Instead of doing a bunch of expensive network TV advertising, why doesn't the party just send a copy of this book to each and every household in the country.
It sounds just like the kind of bathroom literature that would be actually read and appreciated. It never hurts to have a captive audience either.
later.
A short list of their members(longer list found here)
George H.W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
Francis Maude
Walter Mondale
Dick Cheney
Robert Taft Jr
Daniel J. Evans
William Scranton
James R. Thompson
Charles Robb
John McCain
Funny I didn't see Obama's name on the list.
Posted by SandyH on April 2, 2008 at 03:36 PM
Hmmmm. Sounds like we should put this in airport bathrooms too. Something to read while a republican is looking for their next "date".
Republicans do make good dog food if cooked at 350 degrees for 2 1/2 hours. But they need to be skinned and dressed first and cut into steak sized pieces.
If the junior senator from NY loses her POTUS bid, it is for one reason and one reason only, her husband. As much as I hate to admit it, I've lost a significant amount of respect for President Clinton during the primaries. Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 2, 2008 at 02:44
I totally agree. Every time Bill comes on the TV, I turn my head - he is starting to make me sick. Too bad - I was pulling for him for so long. Now, since he is running for a 3rd term - um er I mean - Hillary..that's what I wanted to say, I mean Hillary running for President and he's her mouth piece - my mind about him has changed.
I recently posted this on PB. I thought that some of you would like to see how many people thought about the Pledge of Allegience back in the 60's. Red Skelton did a great job explaining it.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/RetiredArmyFamily/Cc22
Black Claims McCain’s Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: ‘I Don’t Know What The Criticism Is’
Last week, BKSH & Associates chairman Charlie Black announced that he was quitting his lobbying firm to join Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign full-time, effective March 31. Prior to this arrangement, however, Black had already been serving as a senior adviser to the campaign.
DOBBS: Well, you know, lobbyists, no one rails against them more than I do as you know Charlie. The criticism of having so many lobbyists in the McCain campaign, what is the response?
BLACK: “Where are they?” is the response. If you look at the senior staff, the top 12, 15, 20 people of the McCain campaign, there’s no one other than me who was a lobbyist — a currently active lobbyist. Now I am not. I don’t know what the criticism is.
Some examples of the lobbyist ties of McCain’s senior staff:
– Rick Davis, Campaign Manager: Between 2002 and 2005, Verizon paid Davis $640,000 to lobby on its behalf. Davis signed Verizon up as a client in 2001, just a year after he managed McCain’s first presidential campaign. McCain served as Senate Commerce Committee chairman for most of that time. Verizon and Davis terminated their contract after 2005, when McCain gave up the chairmanship. [Senate Lobbying Database; USA Today, 3/23/08]
– Christian Ferry, Deputy Campaign Manager: Ferry “partnered with Davis in representing SBC and Verizon from 2003 to 2005.” [USA Today, 3/23/08]
– David Crane, Senior Policy Adviser: Crane is a lobbyist and president of Quadripoint Strategies and “served as a senior policy advisor” to McCain on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. “He previously worked as a lobbyist and senior vice president for Global USA and The Washington Group. His clients have included Bank of America, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.” [Media Matters, 2/26/08]
– John Green, Congressional Liaison: Green is co-founder and managing director of Ogilvy Government Relations, one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying firms. Recently, McCain pushed the Pentagon to open the bidding process for new Air Force tankers to EADS — a European company — “a move loudly objected to…by numerous members of Congress.” Green received $1,080,000 to lobby for EADS, although he is now on a “leave of absence” from Ogilvy. [AP, 3/11/08]
– Thomas Loeffler, Campaign Co-Chairman: Loeffler is founder, chairman, and senior partner at the Loeffler Group. While serving as McCain’s national finance chairman, Loeffler also lobbied for EADS in the Air Force deal. [AP, 3/11/08]
– Susan Nelson, Campaign Finance Director: “Before joining the campaign last year, Nelson represented AT&T and Qualcomm for the Loeffler Group in 2006 and 2007. She also represented Verizon in 2004 while working at Ogilvy Government Relations.” [USA Today, 3/23/08]
– Wayne Berman, National Finance Committee Co-Chairman: Berman is the managing director of Ogilvy Government Relations and “has represented AT&T since last year, and Verizon and Verizon Wireless since 2004. Co-workers and their spouses at Ogilvy, formerly known as the Federalist Group, gave McCain’s campaigns $38,550 in the past decade.” [USA Today, 3/23/08]
– Doug Davenport, Regional Chairman: Just yesterday, GOP sources reported that the McCain will be hiring Davenport as one its 10 regional campaign managers. Davenport is founder of the DCI Group and heads its lobbying practice. In the past, DCI “helped set up Progress for America, the well-funded 527 that assisted President Bush in the 2004 elections.” [Ambinder, 4/2/08]
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 03:36 PM
I didn't see Hillary's name either.
Blue, I was just reading up on this too. Maybe this progressive responsible plan will gain the momentum to sweep congress and the senate of war mongers, and put the fear of the public back into government. A media blitz would be helpful.
---------
Progressive Dems Unveil Plan to End Iraq Occupation
By Christopher Hayes, The Nation. Posted April 2, 2008.
Unlike plans offered by both Democratic presidential candidates, the congressional challengers' plan opposes any residual forces.
*****
So at Take Back America, Burner -- a former Microsoft manager from the Seattle suburbs who narrowly missed unseating a GOP incumbent in 2006 -- with nine other Democratic Congressional challengers released A Responsible Plan to End the War. Developed in collaboration with retired military officers and national security professionals, the plan attracted the support of fifteen additional Democratic Senate and House challengers in the first week after it was unveiled.
Unlike the withdrawal plans offered by both Democratic presidential candidates, the Responsible Plan opposes any residual forces as well as permanent military bases. It flatly states, "We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces, and end our military presence in Iraq." It looks toward restoring "Constitutional checks and balances and fix[ing] the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us." It also addresses the need to take responsibility for a humanitarian crisis in which thousands of Iraqis who worked with U.S. forces are in danger and millions are displaced across the region.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 2, 2008 at 04:04 PM
I know. What about it. I think I know where you're baiting. I don't constantly equate Hillary to Bill, but if the supporters want to say Bill was good for America so Hillary will be good for america or continue to blur the line between the two of them then one could infer that her ideology would be inline with the trilateral commission's belief in a one world government and economy.
I mean she did support NAFTA.
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 04:14 PM
I'm not much of a fisherman, so there's no bait in my statement, just fact. I never equate Bill and Hillary, they are not the same person. His successes and failures are not hers and neither should his membership in that organization be used against her.
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Cubist,
So this is an off shoot of the Bilderberg meetings? Even John Edwards was a speaker there once.
Funny I didn't see Obama's name on the list
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 03:36 PM
But isn't Zbigniew Brzezinski one of Obama's top advisors?
And I can't believe that Bill hasn't weazeled his way into an invite through Poppy. So Billinary would then be also associated in some way? (Darned if I can figure out the relationship of those two any longer...both Bill and Poppy or Bill and Hillary.)
The world has gotten a little too small for my tastes. I like diversity.
That "It's a Small World After All" ride at Disneyland gives me the creeps. All those little dolls dressed up like Barbie and the incessant chanting by a bunch of obnoxious kids.
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 04:03 PM
Here's your campaign slogan:
John McCain, The best President that money can buy.
You guys are hyper-sensetive today. The whole conversation centers around republicans non allegiance to this country.
Posted by SandyH on April 2, 2008 at 04:35 PM
...All those little dolls dressed up like Barbie and the incessant chanting by a bunch of obnoxious kids.
Were you still referring to Disneyland or John McCain's latest entourage of his mother, wife, and the one daughter who'll still have anything to do with him?
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 03:36 PM
I don't know much about the Trilateralism movement but looking at the list they look like a scary bunch, and explains a lot about our current economic situation and NAFTA. Remember NAFTA was proposed by GHW Bush and Passed by Clinton.
This is an Organization that involves Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Corporations and Political Leaders from around the world.
This organization "exists to promote closer political and economic cooperation between these areas, which are the primary industrial regions in the world."
In other words, to help the interests of these big banks, big corporations, and political ambitions of these entities. They are exactly what is wrong our economics and the economics of the world today.
Personally, I am glad Obama's name is not on the list. And even more reason to vote for him over Hillary.
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 04:03 PM
Cubilist,
Did any of these people every hold a real job? Influence peddling in or outside corporations and government agencies is not a real life experience.
No wonder none of them are anything but incompetent when they have to perform a real function. They have no skills or experience managing anything that has consequences if they screw up.
They might as well be working for the 700 Club or Joyce Meyers Ministries. Intelligent design would fit right in with their understanding of how the world works.
"I'm holding out for a miracle" just doesn't cut it when I have a deadline.
Posted by TMH on April 2, 2008 at 04:47 PM
HILLARY'S NAME IS NOT ON THE LIST.
Sheesh. If the best you have against Hillary is a blow job or an organization that her husband's attached to, you got nothin. And, I am an Obama supporter.
Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 2, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Bob,
I believe the dolls don't use botox...I may be wrong.
hahaha.
Rove ironically attacks Obama for not wearing flag pins.
In a recent interview with GQ, former Bush adviser Karl Rove criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for “not wearing a flag lapel pin,” saying that “to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism.” As Rove made this comment, however, interviewer Lisa Depaulo noticed that he wasn’t wearing a pin:
DEPAULO: You’re not wearing a flag pin, Karl.
ROVE: Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. But I respect those who consciously get up in the morning and put a flag lapel pin on.
Rove’s ironic moment of criticism echoes a similar gaffe by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA). In February, MSNBC’s Dan Abrams caught Kingston attacking Obama over the pins while not wearing one himself.
The whole conversation centers around republicans not allegiance to this country.
Posted by Cubilist on April 2, 2008 at 04:39 PM
But it does. Don't you listen to Lou Dobbs? (Just kidding.)
But seriously...our jobs, factories, natural resources, and all our venture capital all seem to have left the country. They have even been trying to sell off our crumby infrastructure. That's gettng pretty desperate.
You saw what happened to the economy when they tried to unscrupulously sell off our debt to the unknowing. Whoever has been involved in this made a conscious decision to gamble away our future for short-term gains.
That's not nationalistic. I want them to take off those American flag pins and start wearing prison uniforms.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 2, 2008 at 04:53 PM
If you think there's nothing on her, you're mistaken. I don't think you think that, but I have heard you mutter it a time or two to others.
The fact is, there's plenty of negative stuff on her and I agree we shouldn't use association to discredit her. Her credentials do a very good job of that on their own.
I wasn't trying to associate her to the trilateral commission because of Bill's membership. I don't think she should be associated with Bill's record at all. I posted in response to the allegiance statement about republicans. I posted to show it's ties to McCain and President Bush, their belief in the one world economy/government and that this might be why the economy is failing. It's why they won't be able to fix it.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 2, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Oh, come on, Blue.
She may not have her name of the list, but I bet she remembers risking her life getting off the plane under snipper fire to attend one of those meetings with Bill.
It is pentagon policy to send first families to war zones in unsecured areas.
They have even been trying to sell off our crumby infrastructure. That's gettng pretty desperate. That's not nationalistic. I want them to take off those American flag pins and start wearing prison uniforms.Posted by SandyH on April 2, 2008 at 05:06 PM
When our Gov, Ditch Mitch, sold the Indiana Toll Road, there were a lot of Indiana people really upset. What has happened since then? Well, no improvements other then putting in a pass system which went into effect yesterday. I heard where some of it failed. Other then that - prices have increased... and as a citizen of Indiana, I have not seem any money used for improvements in the community that the money was supposed to be used for. We still have two out of three bridges that are about ready to fall apart (fire trucks can not use them), and pot holes are every where!
have a good day all. I'm outta here.
REMEMBER REMEMBER
VOTE DEM IN NOVEMER.
have a good day all. I'm outta here.
REMEMBER REMEMBER
VOTE DEM IN NOVEMBER.
is this some kind of joke?
is obama kidding or starting to believe his own press releases?
WALLINGFORD, Pa. - Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday he would give Al Gore, a Nobel prize winner, a major role in an Obama administration to address the problem of global warming.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 2, 2008 at 04:53 PM
I am also an Obama supporter, and Hillary is a close number 2, followed way far behind is McCain.
Chimpy isn't on the list either, but look at what he did for the Big Banks and Corporations. Daddy's on the list though. This Trilateralism is more than likely behind the WTO and World Bank, to bring one single currency controlled by the Richest of the Rich.
The idea of one world democratic government and currency in itself is not a bad idea. The thought of one world government and currency ran the way they want it ran we will end up with a world monarchy with the Big Banks as the King and the Big Corporation as the Queen, the court jester will be whatever puppets they have installed to run the government.
That is what scares me the most.
Posted by SandyH on April 2, 2008 at 05:11 PM
I certainly hope she was wearing a flak jacket. :)
Everyone here should know by now that I am not a fan of hers, but I won't make up stuff or stretch things to discredit her.
Posted by gregg on April 2, 2008 at 05:24 PM
I believe he was just answering a question and recognizing a vital asset to our country.
bbl.
Posted by gregg on April 2, 2008 at 05:24 PM
Whats wrong with giving Gore a cabinet position. Secretary of Energy or Interior would be a great spot for him. Maybe even heading up the EPA.
AL Gore is a great asset to the Democratic Party and has worked for many years for the betterment of mankind.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 2, 2008 at 05:35 PM
He was.
Asked at a town hall meeting if he would look at Gore for a possible Cabinet position, Obama said, "I would."(...)
"I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem," Obama said.
"He's someone I talk to on a regular basis," Obama said. "I'm already consulting with him on these issues. Climate change is real. It's something we have to deal with now."
Posted by Kathy_from_Indiana on April 2, 2008 at 03:47 PM
Yes, the interesting thing to me is that Clinton will berate Obama for not leaving Rev Wright's sermons, but she'll stay with a known womanizer and cheater. Now, I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to raise a daughter with a man who is known for philandering. What kind of example is that?
let me be clear, it is presumptuous of obama to think the guy who was vice president and was robbed of the presidency would become a member of his cabinet. more reasonably would for obama to consider being a.g. under a gore presidency and for hillary to secretary of the interior...but like you tmh i am a big gore fan.
I just saw a new 3AM ad on Youtube from Hillary, but it's against John McCain on the subject of the economy - and I say this as an Obama supporter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XpaK-cGO9U
If she had run these ads (and campaigned this way) against McCain in Feb and March instead of against Obama, she'd probably be winning. It's too late now, but not too late to be considered for VP. ;-)
"What kind of example is that?"
One who forgives and believes in keeping her family together if possible.
I agree it would be presumptuous, but you can still offer the position. If it were me, I was just ask Gore "Anything you want to be, its yours."
But he probably feels he can accomplish more in the private sector building up support for environmental issues.
One who forgives and believes in keeping her family together if possible.
Posted by lw on April 2, 2008 at 05:59 PM
What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. There's a difference between forgiving and ignoring. IMO, there is no difference in raising a child in a church with a pastor who occasionally says inflammatory things than in raising a child in a house with a parent who occasionally does inflammatory things.
The whole notion that parents should stay together for the kids is not based in any sort of fact. Now, if the parents want to stay together for political reasons that's something different. But, it's still no example for a young girl to see her mother repeatedly embarassed in public by her charming father.
I actually find it presumptuous of you to find it presumptuous of Obama, since oyu have no type of relationship with Obama that informs you of what the relationship between Al Gore and him is. According to what he says, he speaks with Gore often on the subject. They most likely have already discussed this. I personally don't believe Obama would make this commitment without Gore's prior approval.
Posted by margotb822 on April 2, 2008 at 05:48 PM
margot,
I'm not too sure how many marriages would still be left if we all couldn't give each other another chance.
tmh, i am hoping gore ends up the nominee...i am sick and tired of hillary and obama...i am not impressed with the leadership either is offering and think gore would be great...i doubt this will come to pass and i will be making those phone bank calls in november for one of our two potential prom stars biting my nails and quite possibly losing to this complete sack of s_ _ _ mcdog....alas and alack!!
Posted by gregg on April 2, 2008 at 05:48 PM
gregg,
If Hillary insists on a floor fight at the convention, any of them would have a fat chance of being offered a position in the McCain cabinet.
There is a new evening OPEN THREAD.
I've always thought that the only embarrassment for Hillary Clinton was that Bill got caught.
Posted by gregg on April 2, 2008 at 05:24 PM
And your problem is????
We need to have the problem of global warming, and the attendant problems of our over dependence on Big Oil and the energy monopoly. Whether or not you agree with global warming, you have to agree that finding as many alternative sources of energy as possible and getting those alternatives into as many hands as possible will go a long way to reducing our dependence on the Big Corporations that are currently holding our economy for ransom, from Big oil, to Big Agribusiness, to all the petroleum based items such as plastics, synthetics, and fertilizers that we are paying through the nose for and which is doing this earth no damn good.
Im out of here today. Good conversation.
Gregg, that would be interest, Gore as nominee, but I think it would hurt in the long run. Whoever our next POTUS is, which will be a dem, needs to surround themselves with many of our good leaders.
Posted by SandyH on April 2, 2008 at 06:21 PM
I do agree in givning people one second chance, but not three or four second chances. I also think that there are not a lot of first marriages left, but there are more second marriages that succeed.
My point was not to suggest that the Clintons get divorced because of his philandering, but that Hillary Clinton makes a big show about saying "He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." Except that you do choose your husband. And she chose Bill, and chose to stay with him when he did some very offensive things, and she also chose to keep her daughter in that situation. So, I don't consider Clinton's position that she somehow has superior judgement when it comes to difficult family situations.
Additionally, and we all know this, Rev Wright was invited to the WH for a religious leaders breakfast. I'm not saying the Clinton's were close to him, but I'm guessing that these leaders were screened before he was invited, and nothing outraged her then.
Here's a Victory for our side, guys!
Pentagon Is Expected to Close Intelligence Unit
By Mark Mazzetti
The New York Times
Washington - The Pentagon is expected to shut a controversial intelligence office that has drawn fire from lawmakers and civil liberties groups who charge that it was part of an effort by the Defense Department to expand into domestic spying.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040208D.shtml
Well, it is about time for these Repugs to acknowledge what the rest of us knew all along!!
Fed Chief Offers Bleak Assessment of Economy
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke acknowledged today for the first time that the United States may be in a recession, projecting that the economy could shrink during the first half of this year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/02/AR2008040200343.html?hpid=topnews
I'm also disturbed that you seem to be ignoring all the other information that shows supporters of other candidates were disadvantaged and that supporters of your candidate were doing their best to block the results.
Posted by margotb822 on April 2, 2008 at 01:57 PM
Could you explain this more to me, please? Who was disadvantaged? and how? I don't think you're talking about the Hispanic voters, and rural whites, who had to travel more (time and money) to caucus, only to be counted less compared to urban areas. You do know that the poverty rate is higher is some of these rural areas?
It seems like you are ignoring the fact that big city representatives (and political bosses) cooked up a system to overturn the popular vote by adding a second contest that gave more votes to urban areas. We should call it the DeLay justice caucus.
Why the two process election? Could it be that if it were just a primary the Hispanics, representing 50%, would win. So they cook up this convoluted election process that gives more votes to big city urban areas, so the 13% of African Americans can "win" the election. It's no accident that this is a unique and strange voting process. It was created to overturn the will of the people. And that's exactly what it did.
It sounds like a "slam dunk" in court to me. Well, maybe that's not the best term to use these days. It's a very strong case, I can safely say.
You do admit that we would have a civil rights issue if white votes counted more than a minority votes? In fact, it would be a Constitutional issue, correct? You do admit that if whites had fewer votes in an election, but because the white votes counted more, the whites won, we would have an issue begging for Court? You don't consider this a matter of civil rights?
PS. Don't you hate when you write a post, and it vanishes? I try to copy (edit -> copy) it before I post it just to make sure I have it, in case I get one of those messages about being logged in.
******************************
***************
NEW OPEN THREAD!!
***************
***************
***************
Hillary Clinton makes a big show...
Posted by margotb822 on April 2, 2008 at 06:41 PM
Here is what gets me these days. People are totally exaggerating what Hillary says. You mean "a big show" like a press conference? No, a reporter asked her a question, and she merely answered. Maybe Obama people wanted her to downplay the event? "Hell yeah I would still be sitting in those pews if my pastor said those kind of mean-spirited things."
Besides, it's a apples and oranges thing. Her and Bill are a private matter. Your church is a public event. Bill uses bad judgment over a short period of time. Rev. Wright preached that brand for 20 years. And no, I don't think Hillary vetted the speeches of all the preachers, priests, and rabbis that were invited to a WH non-political event. I don't think it's fair to blame her for honestly answering a question, and not vetting a non-political event this is meant to bring different faiths together.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
