Chester County Democrats
About the Author
This group strives to bring together Democrats in the Chester County area who would like to become more involved in the party process as well as become engaged for the upcoming 2008 election.
FROM THE DESK OF BARACK OBAMA
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I¢m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country¢s destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
OBAMA '08
Hope. Vision. Courage. Now.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
-- Robert F. Kennedy, June 6, 1968
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I¢m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country¢s destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
OBAMA '08
Hope. Vision. Courage. Now.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
-- Robert F. Kennedy, June 6, 1968
Register to vote, and send Voltage to play at the Democratic National Convention. We have songs that are perfect for the event already written, and I am already the number one democrat at the DNC.
That meaning is... For Fifty States. So ADD THE MISSING STATES- DNC! PEOPLE VOTED...AND WILL BE COUNTED. ALL 50 STATES = UNITED.
To all the big states!
IN and NC.. We look forward to you.
and please......keep remembering FL and MI are really with us too.
IN and NC.. We look forward to you.
and please......keep remembering FL and MI are really with us too.
Took a look at very wise bloggers post a few minutes ago... and now I'd like to adulterate it little...lol..
Let's do a comparison between candidates according to these top 10...
A reminder of who is best suited for the Democratic Candidacy for President
1) Global Warming
Barrack allowed illegal pollutants in Illinois, and allowed Nufarm to bring them without fines, he also voted for Bush’s Stupid Oil bill giving 6 Billion in subsides back to oil CEO’s in tax breaks, guess he couldn’t resist the pinnate of goodies the lobbyists offered, somehow it was easy for Clinton to pass up, she can’t be bought easily, she doesn’t need the money.
2) Iraq
She is the only one who has stood her ground, with conviction and fortitude. She has the strength, experience and intelligence to end the war, and she has more military generals who agree with her stance than Obama
3) The two oldest Justices on the Supreme Court are liberals (Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75.)
She has more ability to get Supreme Court Justices approved, with a better track record of cooperative bi-partisan effort, there will be less objection to her choice of liberal justices, a more moderate dem candidate always passes more bills, Obama the most liberal senator on record, has passed only one fifth the bills in his 3 years, than her in her 7 years. That translates to Clinton being twice as successful and effective.
4) Universal Health Care
She is the only original true crusader and architect of what is obviously a step up towards human evolution in our culture. She has been an advocate for children, since Obama needed a babysitter, and the jury is still out that...lol
5) Democrats control both the House and Senate. But which Democratic Candidate would help get the repos on board and stop the filibusters? Naturally, the majority of super delegates are in her corner, and she would have a much more effective political relationship with both the house and senate, since they are comprised of super delegates.
6) Alternative Energy
No one has come up with a more comprehensive plan for energy than Hillary Clinton, meanwhile Obama still constructing his, it looks more and more like hers, obviously she knows what she is talking about, since she is the original one with the plans to create jobs and seek alternative energy. She did it way before him, that should tell you alot.
7) 2000 - the last 8 years should have been ours
And if the repos continue to vote for Obama in the primary just so that they can vote for McCain against him in the GE, the dems will have lost their own nose to spite their own face.
8) NeoCons - Little did we know it meant, "New Convicts"
LOL, here is where the battle between the two dem candidates, begins to shed some light on how bad things have gotten where Obama came from and how much they have improved in Clintons neck of the woods.
Furthermore, when we consider how the creepo repos are back-paddling towards the most vulnerable men in order to brainwash them into believing that the military under creepo repo rule would be best for them, considering we can’t really knock anyone for giving these men a break, it is a very insipid strategy for the G.E. that has been ongoing for the past 5 years... surprise, surprise, surprise, what will they think of next, plenty... their intention is to bury Obama in the G.E. and the only candidate battle tested for indestructibility against the repos is Clinton.
9) Which spy will Karl Rove out next?
Interesting how easy it is to pull the wool over people eyes, right? The guy who supports your career, your buddy, next to you at the party lifting his glass in a toast could be, a rich and spoiled terrorist, or a raving ranting hate monger, or greedy a london based war profiteer billionaire from Iraq, or a greedy local Chicagoan political slim-ball. Somehow I see Clinton has have her head screwed on quite a bit tighter and straighter, her political judgment and associates are much less worry-some than his.
10) Katrina. I'm sure the Republicans will do a heck of a job for the next hurricane. The Clintons have done more for the victims of Katrina than Obama and they have given 3 times the percentage of their income to charity, than the Obama’s. No one is better equipped to clean up after another Bush mess than another Clinton. Obviously this isn’t the first time they have rolled up their sleeves to clean up the stench and residue left over from the repos in the White House.
Now let's compare everything else too, spending, dogma, associations, positive and otherwise, experience, bills passed, policies, issues, electability, and his notions that Washington will change the way things get done if he were president....lol
after nothing but men in the white house, the only real change would be a woman...
Go for it...lets run them both through the mill and see which one cleans up nicer...
Hillary Clinton 08
Let's do a comparison between candidates according to these top 10...
A reminder of who is best suited for the Democratic Candidacy for President
1) Global Warming
Barrack allowed illegal pollutants in Illinois, and allowed Nufarm to bring them without fines, he also voted for Bush’s Stupid Oil bill giving 6 Billion in subsides back to oil CEO’s in tax breaks, guess he couldn’t resist the pinnate of goodies the lobbyists offered, somehow it was easy for Clinton to pass up, she can’t be bought easily, she doesn’t need the money.
2) Iraq
She is the only one who has stood her ground, with conviction and fortitude. She has the strength, experience and intelligence to end the war, and she has more military generals who agree with her stance than Obama
3) The two oldest Justices on the Supreme Court are liberals (Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75.)
She has more ability to get Supreme Court Justices approved, with a better track record of cooperative bi-partisan effort, there will be less objection to her choice of liberal justices, a more moderate dem candidate always passes more bills, Obama the most liberal senator on record, has passed only one fifth the bills in his 3 years, than her in her 7 years. That translates to Clinton being twice as successful and effective.
4) Universal Health Care
She is the only original true crusader and architect of what is obviously a step up towards human evolution in our culture. She has been an advocate for children, since Obama needed a babysitter, and the jury is still out that...lol
5) Democrats control both the House and Senate. But which Democratic Candidate would help get the repos on board and stop the filibusters? Naturally, the majority of super delegates are in her corner, and she would have a much more effective political relationship with both the house and senate, since they are comprised of super delegates.
6) Alternative Energy
No one has come up with a more comprehensive plan for energy than Hillary Clinton, meanwhile Obama still constructing his, it looks more and more like hers, obviously she knows what she is talking about, since she is the original one with the plans to create jobs and seek alternative energy. She did it way before him, that should tell you alot.
7) 2000 - the last 8 years should have been ours
And if the repos continue to vote for Obama in the primary just so that they can vote for McCain against him in the GE, the dems will have lost their own nose to spite their own face.
8) NeoCons - Little did we know it meant, "New Convicts"
LOL, here is where the battle between the two dem candidates, begins to shed some light on how bad things have gotten where Obama came from and how much they have improved in Clintons neck of the woods.
Furthermore, when we consider how the creepo repos are back-paddling towards the most vulnerable men in order to brainwash them into believing that the military under creepo repo rule would be best for them, considering we can’t really knock anyone for giving these men a break, it is a very insipid strategy for the G.E. that has been ongoing for the past 5 years... surprise, surprise, surprise, what will they think of next, plenty... their intention is to bury Obama in the G.E. and the only candidate battle tested for indestructibility against the repos is Clinton.
9) Which spy will Karl Rove out next?
Interesting how easy it is to pull the wool over people eyes, right? The guy who supports your career, your buddy, next to you at the party lifting his glass in a toast could be, a rich and spoiled terrorist, or a raving ranting hate monger, or greedy a london based war profiteer billionaire from Iraq, or a greedy local Chicagoan political slim-ball. Somehow I see Clinton has have her head screwed on quite a bit tighter and straighter, her political judgment and associates are much less worry-some than his.
10) Katrina. I'm sure the Republicans will do a heck of a job for the next hurricane. The Clintons have done more for the victims of Katrina than Obama and they have given 3 times the percentage of their income to charity, than the Obama’s. No one is better equipped to clean up after another Bush mess than another Clinton. Obviously this isn’t the first time they have rolled up their sleeves to clean up the stench and residue left over from the repos in the White House.
Now let's compare everything else too, spending, dogma, associations, positive and otherwise, experience, bills passed, policies, issues, electability, and his notions that Washington will change the way things get done if he were president....lol
after nothing but men in the white house, the only real change would be a woman...
Go for it...lets run them both through the mill and see which one cleans up nicer...
Hillary Clinton 08
The compassion forum is on.
In Pennsylvania today, they are not fooled by Obama's empty rhetoric and can see right through Obama'a self absorbed candidacy. The dems I talked to understand how eager the repos are to rip him to shreds, and they don't want another repo anywhere near the white house... They loved it when she said, they should appologize and not run a candidate!
Her supporters are also glad she is the only candidate who is unwavering in her resolve to end the Iraq Fiasco, they heard Obama yeild and pander to Bush's repo general Petraeus, they saw him go soft and wishy washy. Clinton is tough enough to to actually end it, Obama is once again acting like a little kid trying to appease his new bigger friends... complaining about being asked about Ayres didn't help the whining image..
At least the press admitted to giving Hillary a hard time... no one can ever say it is not relevant to finally address the newest nut case skeleton in Obama's dimwitted closet. Ayres, had not been addressed before, and to suggest that it was inappropriate just goes to show how crazed some of his overzealous followers are.
I know Clinton pardoned the brainwashed underlings of Ayres but at least he never partied with them and certainly not with the Mr. Money Bags Aryes, his family ran Com Ed, yet another multi millionaire slim ball Obama is cozy with. Aryes is a spoiled brat and in a morally bankrupt league all his own, it is easy to see how the tactics for manipulation have been passed on. Knowing how Obama has manipulated and disappointed Illinois voters with his ballot petition manipulation and his anti environmental stance with his vote for "The Stupid Bush Oil Bill", and his association with Nufarm polluters and a slew of other polluters has made him very untrustworthy in the eyes of voters, and for good reason. They don't want to lose the election to the repos!
Best Candidate to end the War
Best Candidate for the Economy
Best Candidate for the Environment
Best Candidate for Health Care
Best Candidate for Vets
Best Candidate for Education
Best Candidate for Foreign Relations
Best Candidate for President of the United States
Hillary Clinton O8
Her supporters are also glad she is the only candidate who is unwavering in her resolve to end the Iraq Fiasco, they heard Obama yeild and pander to Bush's repo general Petraeus, they saw him go soft and wishy washy. Clinton is tough enough to to actually end it, Obama is once again acting like a little kid trying to appease his new bigger friends... complaining about being asked about Ayres didn't help the whining image..
At least the press admitted to giving Hillary a hard time... no one can ever say it is not relevant to finally address the newest nut case skeleton in Obama's dimwitted closet. Ayres, had not been addressed before, and to suggest that it was inappropriate just goes to show how crazed some of his overzealous followers are.
I know Clinton pardoned the brainwashed underlings of Ayres but at least he never partied with them and certainly not with the Mr. Money Bags Aryes, his family ran Com Ed, yet another multi millionaire slim ball Obama is cozy with. Aryes is a spoiled brat and in a morally bankrupt league all his own, it is easy to see how the tactics for manipulation have been passed on. Knowing how Obama has manipulated and disappointed Illinois voters with his ballot petition manipulation and his anti environmental stance with his vote for "The Stupid Bush Oil Bill", and his association with Nufarm polluters and a slew of other polluters has made him very untrustworthy in the eyes of voters, and for good reason. They don't want to lose the election to the repos!
Best Candidate to end the War
Best Candidate for the Economy
Best Candidate for the Environment
Best Candidate for Health Care
Best Candidate for Vets
Best Candidate for Education
Best Candidate for Foreign Relations
Best Candidate for President of the United States
Hillary Clinton O8
Folks,
Check out this link:
http://wizbangblue.com/2008/04/18/obama-dropping-in-gallup-tracking-poll.php
(it contains other good links too)
Todays Gallup poll shows Obama plummeting drastically in the 5 days since debate!!!
Obama supporters: Please do not take it out on those of us who support Sen. Clinton.
Check out this link:
http://wizbangblue.com/2008/04/18/obama-dropping-in-gallup-tracking-poll.php
(it contains other good links too)
Todays Gallup poll shows Obama plummeting drastically in the 5 days since debate!!!
Obama supporters: Please do not take it out on those of us who support Sen. Clinton.
Some Statistics:
Hillary Clinton has sponsored 359 bills since Jan 22, 2001,
10 were successfully enacted (Very Good, relative to peers).
Some of Clinton's most recently sponsored bills include...
S. 2114: American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007
S. 2082: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network, and for other purposes.
S. 2059: Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act
S. 1148: Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission Act of 2007
S. 2054: Neighborhood Reclamation and Revitalization Program Act of 2007
Hillary Clinton has sponsored 359 bills since Jan 22, 2001,
10 were successfully enacted (Very Good, relative to peers).
Some of Clinton's most recently sponsored bills include...
S. 2114: American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007
S. 2082: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network, and for other purposes.
S. 2059: Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act
S. 1148: Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission Act of 2007
S. 2054: Neighborhood Reclamation and Revitalization Program Act of 2007
Ask Big Brother Himself and he complains.
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
“Ayres, whose relationship with Obama we've discussed before, is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and founder of both the Small Schools Workshop and the Center for Youth and Society, which is how Sen. Barack Obama knows him.
But before he and his wife Bernardine Dohrn -- also a former member of the Weather Underground -- became what the Obama campaign refers to as (quoting Alexander Cockburn) as "respectable fixtures in mainstream liberal Chicago years ago" -- they were leaders of the militant group.
They went underground after a 1970 town house explosion in Manhattan killed three of the group's own members, after which they were indicted for crossing state lines to incite a riot -- the Days of Rage -- as well as for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings," including the Capitol, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Headquarters. Those charges were dropped because of illegal surveillance and other examples of prosecutorial misconduct.
While Ayers and Dohrn were hiding from law enforcement, the Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the US Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building. In 1981 Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to federal authorities, but all charges were dropped as a result of alleged "government legal misconduct."
In 1980, Ayres and Dohrn surrendered and pleaded guilty to possession of explosives. Ayres didn't serve any time; Dohrn did seven months in prison for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation into the Brinks robbery. They married during a prison furlough.”
"The difference here is that Bill Ayers hosted an event for Senator Obama at his home when he was running for state senator," Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. "I can tell you that neither Linda Evans or Susan Rosenberg hosted an event for her, and I think that's why the question becomes relevant."
Another mega millionaire friend, Aryes family used to run Com Ed., money enough to act out political tantrums, kill people and then start a new life.... without regrets. I wonder how the families of those who died feel about the way their loved ones were served kool-aid by Aryes... funny how something insane seems so sane when blinded by self-righteousness..
Yeah, I think it's still safe to ask about Aryes... let's hope it stays that way.
Real Strength
Real Integrity
Real Change
Real Accounability
Clinton 08
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
“Ayres, whose relationship with Obama we've discussed before, is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and founder of both the Small Schools Workshop and the Center for Youth and Society, which is how Sen. Barack Obama knows him.
But before he and his wife Bernardine Dohrn -- also a former member of the Weather Underground -- became what the Obama campaign refers to as (quoting Alexander Cockburn) as "respectable fixtures in mainstream liberal Chicago years ago" -- they were leaders of the militant group.
They went underground after a 1970 town house explosion in Manhattan killed three of the group's own members, after which they were indicted for crossing state lines to incite a riot -- the Days of Rage -- as well as for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings," including the Capitol, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Headquarters. Those charges were dropped because of illegal surveillance and other examples of prosecutorial misconduct.
While Ayers and Dohrn were hiding from law enforcement, the Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the US Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building. In 1981 Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to federal authorities, but all charges were dropped as a result of alleged "government legal misconduct."
In 1980, Ayres and Dohrn surrendered and pleaded guilty to possession of explosives. Ayres didn't serve any time; Dohrn did seven months in prison for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation into the Brinks robbery. They married during a prison furlough.”
"The difference here is that Bill Ayers hosted an event for Senator Obama at his home when he was running for state senator," Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. "I can tell you that neither Linda Evans or Susan Rosenberg hosted an event for her, and I think that's why the question becomes relevant."
Another mega millionaire friend, Aryes family used to run Com Ed., money enough to act out political tantrums, kill people and then start a new life.... without regrets. I wonder how the families of those who died feel about the way their loved ones were served kool-aid by Aryes... funny how something insane seems so sane when blinded by self-righteousness..
Yeah, I think it's still safe to ask about Aryes... let's hope it stays that way.
Real Strength
Real Integrity
Real Change
Real Accounability
Clinton 08
Obama morphs San Francisco statements in his Indiana "response" to his latest disparagement of working-class middle America.
Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html?page=3
What he really said:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/
Said in SF - snippet:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This (with or without the rest of the comments as context) equates approximately to: its not surprising that they are 'gun toting + religious nut + racists' because they don't have jobs and a lot of bad things have happened to them. There are people out there in working class middle America smart enough to notice this; they are voicing it.
As an example, one such person, who identifies as "We in small town America" described his interpretation of Obama's remarks:
"NOW WE HAVE BITTER SMALL TOWN LAZY WHITE FOLK WHO ARE GUN TOTEN RELIGION LOVING RACISTS"
Another example:
"My problem with Obama's statements is that he just described a Bush-supporting red-neck, a cartoon character really, who wants to be lied to by Republicans and is willfully ignorant. He has generalized the Democrats (!) in PA as backwards and racist.
And another:
It will yield him a bigger loss in Pennsylvania because he has revealed an elitist view of working class citizens
Another:
... of all the vile sermons I"ve watched emanating from your church, and for
all the ridiculous and narrow minded ideas you"ve espoused on national
defense, nothing offends me more than this comment about small town
America"s reasons for worshiping God. How dare you!
The rest of what Obama says equates approximately to an explanation to SF backers, that the reason he is having a hard time with the working class /middle America voters in Pennsylvania is that while "working-class lunch-pail folks" who are of mixed races in the "worst neighborhoods" are 'Obama enthusiasts", the other kind of working class people are hard to convince because "it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism".
The statement equates approximately to: working class inner city people of color in the worst neighborhoods are for Obama but others are not because they are white racists, or at best, put off by black men. There exists a context related to his earlier comment following the "race speech" in which he described the 'typical white person' - like his grandmother who Obama described spouts racial slurs and fears the black man.
What he later claims he said (trying to morph it just enough to make it sound a little more palatable):
http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/04/obamas-bitter-c.html
[this link is one from an Obama supporter site, chosen out of attempted fairness]
Later, morphed version said in Indiana:
"So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. "
Note that Obama attempts to tone down the implication that middle America is racist, and to change his characterization regarding religion to something positive, in this second version.
However, this later revision adds that they/we are also homophobic, i.e. 'gun toting + religious nut + racists + gay-haters' , or perhaps just 'gun toting + gay-haters', due to the morphing of the original religious nut + racists component.
Obama's Hope appears to be to have erased or overwritten the SF remarks with the later recounting that is possibly more palatable and yet still divisive along useful lines, the 'gun toting + gay-haters' lines. Note the repeated use of "they"; an 'us versus them' component in his words, analogous to referring to a group - American working class - as "you people".
In addition, Obama is being given yet another comfy pillow; the media apparently choosing to focus only on the word 'bitter' as if the issue is only the use of the word bitter and whether or not the word "bitter" is condescending.
If the true statement in full, and in context, isn't condescending - I don't know what is; its also divisive and polarizing. As Hillary correctly states, it is elitist and demeaning; its not reflective of America's values.
Obama's a Uniter all right; A Uniter, a la George W. Bush.
And talk about judgment; try this thought experiment:
Even if you are the kind of person who agrees with Obama's statements about what working class middle America is, or you think its acceptable for a presidential nominee candidate to believe that - would you prefer your candidate choose to say it out loud while running? Is it good for the democrat party? Will it win us the White House? If you see elements of truth in what Obama says, ask yourself, is it for the good of the party and the country that he causes a hailstorm of division by harping on everything wrong with America? And if so - does it have to be now, when so many American's are earnestly trying to find a way to keep a roof over there heads and see their loved ones return safely from an horrific war? Even if you are still an Obama supporter, ask yourself, is it a sign of really good judgment to once again antagonize most of working-class America - most of the real 'us'?
Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html?page=3
What he really said:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/
Said in SF - snippet:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This (with or without the rest of the comments as context) equates approximately to: its not surprising that they are 'gun toting + religious nut + racists' because they don't have jobs and a lot of bad things have happened to them. There are people out there in working class middle America smart enough to notice this; they are voicing it.
As an example, one such person, who identifies as "We in small town America" described his interpretation of Obama's remarks:
"NOW WE HAVE BITTER SMALL TOWN LAZY WHITE FOLK WHO ARE GUN TOTEN RELIGION LOVING RACISTS"
Another example:
"My problem with Obama's statements is that he just described a Bush-supporting red-neck, a cartoon character really, who wants to be lied to by Republicans and is willfully ignorant. He has generalized the Democrats (!) in PA as backwards and racist.
And another:
It will yield him a bigger loss in Pennsylvania because he has revealed an elitist view of working class citizens
Another:
... of all the vile sermons I"ve watched emanating from your church, and for
all the ridiculous and narrow minded ideas you"ve espoused on national
defense, nothing offends me more than this comment about small town
America"s reasons for worshiping God. How dare you!
The rest of what Obama says equates approximately to an explanation to SF backers, that the reason he is having a hard time with the working class /middle America voters in Pennsylvania is that while "working-class lunch-pail folks" who are of mixed races in the "worst neighborhoods" are 'Obama enthusiasts", the other kind of working class people are hard to convince because "it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism".
The statement equates approximately to: working class inner city people of color in the worst neighborhoods are for Obama but others are not because they are white racists, or at best, put off by black men. There exists a context related to his earlier comment following the "race speech" in which he described the 'typical white person' - like his grandmother who Obama described spouts racial slurs and fears the black man.
What he later claims he said (trying to morph it just enough to make it sound a little more palatable):
http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/04/obamas-bitter-c.html
[this link is one from an Obama supporter site, chosen out of attempted fairness]
Later, morphed version said in Indiana:
"So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. "
Note that Obama attempts to tone down the implication that middle America is racist, and to change his characterization regarding religion to something positive, in this second version.
However, this later revision adds that they/we are also homophobic, i.e. 'gun toting + religious nut + racists + gay-haters' , or perhaps just 'gun toting + gay-haters', due to the morphing of the original religious nut + racists component.
Obama's Hope appears to be to have erased or overwritten the SF remarks with the later recounting that is possibly more palatable and yet still divisive along useful lines, the 'gun toting + gay-haters' lines. Note the repeated use of "they"; an 'us versus them' component in his words, analogous to referring to a group - American working class - as "you people".
In addition, Obama is being given yet another comfy pillow; the media apparently choosing to focus only on the word 'bitter' as if the issue is only the use of the word bitter and whether or not the word "bitter" is condescending.
If the true statement in full, and in context, isn't condescending - I don't know what is; its also divisive and polarizing. As Hillary correctly states, it is elitist and demeaning; its not reflective of America's values.
Obama's a Uniter all right; A Uniter, a la George W. Bush.
And talk about judgment; try this thought experiment:
Even if you are the kind of person who agrees with Obama's statements about what working class middle America is, or you think its acceptable for a presidential nominee candidate to believe that - would you prefer your candidate choose to say it out loud while running? Is it good for the democrat party? Will it win us the White House? If you see elements of truth in what Obama says, ask yourself, is it for the good of the party and the country that he causes a hailstorm of division by harping on everything wrong with America? And if so - does it have to be now, when so many American's are earnestly trying to find a way to keep a roof over there heads and see their loved ones return safely from an horrific war? Even if you are still an Obama supporter, ask yourself, is it a sign of really good judgment to once again antagonize most of working-class America - most of the real 'us'?
Obama morphs San Francisco statements in his Indiana "response" to his latest disparagement of working-class middle America.
Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html?page=3
What he really said:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/
Said in SF - snippet:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This (with or without the rest of the comments as context) equates approximately to: its not surprising that they are 'gun toting + religious nut + racists' because they don't have jobs and a lot of bad things have happened to them. There are people out there in working class middle America smart enough to notice this; they are voicing it.
As an example, one such person, who identifies as "We in small town America" described his interpretation of Obama's remarks:
"NOW WE HAVE BITTER SMALL TOWN LAZY WHITE FOLK WHO ARE GUN TOTEN RELIGION LOVING RACISTS"
Another example:
"My problem with Obama's statements is that he just described a Bush-supporting red-neck, a cartoon character really, who wants to be lied to by Republicans and is willfully ignorant. He has generalized the Democrats (!) in PA as backwards and racist.
And another:
It will yield him a bigger loss in Pennsylvania because he has revealed an elitist view of working class citizens
Another:
... of all the vile sermons I"ve watched emanating from your church, and for
all the ridiculous and narrow minded ideas you"ve espoused on national
defense, nothing offends me more than this comment about small town
America"s reasons for worshiping God. How dare you!
The rest of what Obama says equates approximately to an explanation to SF backers, that the reason he is having a hard time with the working class /middle America voters in Pennsylvania is that while "working-class lunch-pail folks" who are of mixed races in the "worst neighborhoods" are 'Obama enthusiasts", the other kind of working class people are hard to convince because "it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism".
The statement equates approximately to: working class inner city people of color in the worst neighborhoods are for Obama but others are not because they are white racists. There exists a context related to his earlier comment following the "race speech" in which he described the 'typical white person' - like his grandmother who Obama described spouts racial slurs and fears the black man.
What he later claims he said (trying to morph it just enough to make it sound a little more palatable):
http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/04/obamas-bitter-c.html
[this link is one from an Obama supporter site, chosen out of attempted fairness]
Later, morphed version said in Indiana:
"So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. "
Note that Obama attempts to tone down the implication that middle America is racist, and to change his characterization regarding religion to something positive, in this second version.
However, this later revision adds that they/we are also homophobic, i.e. 'gun toting + religious nut + racists + gay-haters' , or perhaps just 'gun toting + gay-haters', due to the morphing of the original religious nut + racists component.
Obama's hope appears to be to have erased or overwritten the SF remarks with the later recounting that is possibly more palatable and yet still divisive along useful lines, the 'gun toting + gay-haters' lines.
In addition, Obama is being given yet another comfy pillow; the media apparently choosing to focus only on the word 'bitter' as if the issue is only the use of the word bitter and whether or not the word "bitter" is condescending.
If the true statement in full, and in context, isn't condescending - I don't know what is; its also divisive and polarizing. As Hillary correctly states, it is elitist and demeaning; its not reflective of America's values.
Obama's a Uniter all right; A Uniter, a la George W. Bush.
And talk about judgment; try this thought experiment:
Even if you are the kind of person who agrees with Obama's statements about what working class middle America is, or you think its acceptable for a presidential nominee candidate to believe that - would you prefer your candidate choose to say it out loud while running? Is it good for the democrat party? Will it win us the White House? Even if you are still an Obama supporter, ask yourself, is it a sign of really good judgment to once again antagonize most of working-class America - most of us?
Disclosure: I am a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton. I do not work for her campaign or any campaign office. I have a middle America heritage; I'm not one of the wealthy elite; I'm educated, professional, not considered poor. I am loyal to the party, a lifelong democrat from generations of democrats.
Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html?page=3
What he really said:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/
Said in SF - snippet:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This (with or without the rest of the comments as context) equates approximately to: its not surprising that they are 'gun toting + religious nut + racists' because they don't have jobs and a lot of bad things have happened to them. There are people out there in working class middle America smart enough to notice this; they are voicing it.
As an example, one such person, who identifies as "We in small town America" described his interpretation of Obama's remarks:
"NOW WE HAVE BITTER SMALL TOWN LAZY WHITE FOLK WHO ARE GUN TOTEN RELIGION LOVING RACISTS"
Another example:
"My problem with Obama's statements is that he just described a Bush-supporting red-neck, a cartoon character really, who wants to be lied to by Republicans and is willfully ignorant. He has generalized the Democrats (!) in PA as backwards and racist.
And another:
It will yield him a bigger loss in Pennsylvania because he has revealed an elitist view of working class citizens
Another:
... of all the vile sermons I"ve watched emanating from your church, and for
all the ridiculous and narrow minded ideas you"ve espoused on national
defense, nothing offends me more than this comment about small town
America"s reasons for worshiping God. How dare you!
The rest of what Obama says equates approximately to an explanation to SF backers, that the reason he is having a hard time with the working class /middle America voters in Pennsylvania is that while "working-class lunch-pail folks" who are of mixed races in the "worst neighborhoods" are 'Obama enthusiasts", the other kind of working class people are hard to convince because "it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism".
The statement equates approximately to: working class inner city people of color in the worst neighborhoods are for Obama but others are not because they are white racists. There exists a context related to his earlier comment following the "race speech" in which he described the 'typical white person' - like his grandmother who Obama described spouts racial slurs and fears the black man.
What he later claims he said (trying to morph it just enough to make it sound a little more palatable):
http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/04/obamas-bitter-c.html
[this link is one from an Obama supporter site, chosen out of attempted fairness]
Later, morphed version said in Indiana:
"So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. "
Note that Obama attempts to tone down the implication that middle America is racist, and to change his characterization regarding religion to something positive, in this second version.
However, this later revision adds that they/we are also homophobic, i.e. 'gun toting + religious nut + racists + gay-haters' , or perhaps just 'gun toting + gay-haters', due to the morphing of the original religious nut + racists component.
Obama's hope appears to be to have erased or overwritten the SF remarks with the later recounting that is possibly more palatable and yet still divisive along useful lines, the 'gun toting + gay-haters' lines.
In addition, Obama is being given yet another comfy pillow; the media apparently choosing to focus only on the word 'bitter' as if the issue is only the use of the word bitter and whether or not the word "bitter" is condescending.
If the true statement in full, and in context, isn't condescending - I don't know what is; its also divisive and polarizing. As Hillary correctly states, it is elitist and demeaning; its not reflective of America's values.
Obama's a Uniter all right; A Uniter, a la George W. Bush.
And talk about judgment; try this thought experiment:
Even if you are the kind of person who agrees with Obama's statements about what working class middle America is, or you think its acceptable for a presidential nominee candidate to believe that - would you prefer your candidate choose to say it out loud while running? Is it good for the democrat party? Will it win us the White House? Even if you are still an Obama supporter, ask yourself, is it a sign of really good judgment to once again antagonize most of working-class America - most of us?
Disclosure: I am a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton. I do not work for her campaign or any campaign office. I have a middle America heritage; I'm not one of the wealthy elite; I'm educated, professional, not considered poor. I am loyal to the party, a lifelong democrat from generations of democrats.
Obama is the Uniter (Bush deja vu?) dividing us along racial lines.
His latest co-opting wordplay: the S-word; wants a 'diplomatic surge'.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080411/NATION01/167553031/0/NATION
What next?
-Voice-O-Reason
His latest co-opting wordplay: the S-word; wants a 'diplomatic surge'.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080411/NATION01/167553031/0/NATION
What next?
-Voice-O-Reason
Folks,
Re: All the recent posts on subjects such as Race matters, racism is wrong, Obama and race, 'typical white person' spouting racial slurs who make us cringe, etc.
It is divisive, ethically and morally bankrupt, and futile if one cares to fight racism, or any form of injustice to view people as fundamentally defined in terms of their category of racial injustice as perpetrators or victims.
Viewing everyone through a polarizing lense of racial injustice is extremely racist!
We are human beings; a beautiful tapestry of multi-hued threads of our characters, our hopes, our interests, our hobbies, our friends, our educational pursuits, our spiritual beliefs, our professions, our arts, sports, lifestyles, and every other category that defines us.
The point isn't whether or not race and racism is an issue deserving attention and solutions - I think we're all beyond the kindergarten level of understanding that there are social issue regarding racism that have yet to be addressed.
The point is - it is deeply racist and defeating to any cause against racism, to allow any one to define us primarily in terms of our status as perpetrators or victims.
To refuse to be primarily defined in terms of racial injustice is not sweeping anything under the rug - its refusing to take part in a self defeating and racist focus on only race.
So can we get off that train - please?! Lets at least try to transcend where society was in its thinking a century to 1/2 century ago already, and approach this with the enlightened level of reason we like to think we have.
Anger and hate justified by someone else's anger and hate is morally absurd and unacceptable in any circumstance by anyone - no matter what compassion they may be due as a victim.
Anger and hate justified by someone else's anger and hate promoted as understandable and justified by a community leader like a pastor or candidate for President is ethically and morally repulsive, reprehensible, and totally inexcusable.
It is even racist to complement someone or decide to support them based on race.
-Voice-O-Reason
Re: All the recent posts on subjects such as Race matters, racism is wrong, Obama and race, 'typical white person' spouting racial slurs who make us cringe, etc.
It is divisive, ethically and morally bankrupt, and futile if one cares to fight racism, or any form of injustice to view people as fundamentally defined in terms of their category of racial injustice as perpetrators or victims.
Viewing everyone through a polarizing lense of racial injustice is extremely racist!
We are human beings; a beautiful tapestry of multi-hued threads of our characters, our hopes, our interests, our hobbies, our friends, our educational pursuits, our spiritual beliefs, our professions, our arts, sports, lifestyles, and every other category that defines us.
The point isn't whether or not race and racism is an issue deserving attention and solutions - I think we're all beyond the kindergarten level of understanding that there are social issue regarding racism that have yet to be addressed.
The point is - it is deeply racist and defeating to any cause against racism, to allow any one to define us primarily in terms of our status as perpetrators or victims.
To refuse to be primarily defined in terms of racial injustice is not sweeping anything under the rug - its refusing to take part in a self defeating and racist focus on only race.
So can we get off that train - please?! Lets at least try to transcend where society was in its thinking a century to 1/2 century ago already, and approach this with the enlightened level of reason we like to think we have.
Anger and hate justified by someone else's anger and hate is morally absurd and unacceptable in any circumstance by anyone - no matter what compassion they may be due as a victim.
Anger and hate justified by someone else's anger and hate promoted as understandable and justified by a community leader like a pastor or candidate for President is ethically and morally repulsive, reprehensible, and totally inexcusable.
It is even racist to complement someone or decide to support them based on race.
-Voice-O-Reason
It's time to get off of the race stoop now...race is irrelevant in Obama's case.
Fear and Hatred have nothing to do with why most dems oppose Obama...
Most are opposed to him for obvious reasons..and skin color doesn't need to enter an equation so fraught with contradiction, poor judgment and empty rhetoric
He is not as good of a leader, has not had original, detailed or accountable plans..
All of Hillary's plans are more detailed, comprehensive and accountable dollar for dollar..she also has more experts in the fields of teaching, healthcare, vets, military, and economy backing each of her plans for dealing with these issues.
She is the stronger candidate for:
Healthcare
Vets
Iraq
Economy
Environment
Energy
and
Foreign Relations
That is what should count most, and to most it does.
That much is already clear..to the majority of all the Democrats...
Obama's poor judgment in friends, associates and voting i.e., Rezko, Wright, Nufarm, Bush's stupid oil bill, oil lobbyists , not an environmentalist that is for sure, do not require skin color...to assess.
He is from the most corrupt political machine in the country and barred his black female competition from opposing him with ballot petition manipulation...and old Chicago trick...to recognize home grown sleaze does not require skin color to assess.
Is easily corruptible, took the oil money and it personal pinnate of perks..but Hillary passed on it, and the sleazy gifts and vacations that the oil lobbyists offered her...he couldn't resist, but he did try to pretend it all never happened.....and his skin color was not required for that assessment either.
None of this is ancient history...this is current...she has learned from her mistakes, and has managed to keep her nose clean much better than him and it doesn't require a look at skin color to figure that out.
Her campaign is about the people, his is about himself, he flip flops on the issues so much, it is hard to keep a straight face when he talks, his skin color surely is not accountable for that assessment, that much is clear.
Why would skin color factor in to any assessment of him, when his duplicity, and corruption are self-evident? Except of course to those who are in denial and refuse to see it. Then perhaps skin color would be their focus for why the rest of us don't think he is worthy of representing the democrats in the general election. Obviously to most of us, convolution does not equate to clarity, when assessing our candidate
Look this is not about hate or fear, for most who support Hillary, and it is blind to think so. Grasping at straws and obviously denying the hard truth and reality...is no way to behave....Obama is simply not the best choice for the democrats to win in 08...and most of them already know that. Eventually time will tell. There are enough differences between our two candidates in order to assess them...without looking at their skin, or gender...lol
Fear and Hatred have nothing to do with why most dems oppose Obama...
Most are opposed to him for obvious reasons..and skin color doesn't need to enter an equation so fraught with contradiction, poor judgment and empty rhetoric
He is not as good of a leader, has not had original, detailed or accountable plans..
All of Hillary's plans are more detailed, comprehensive and accountable dollar for dollar..she also has more experts in the fields of teaching, healthcare, vets, military, and economy backing each of her plans for dealing with these issues.
She is the stronger candidate for:
Healthcare
Vets
Iraq
Economy
Environment
Energy
and
Foreign Relations
That is what should count most, and to most it does.
That much is already clear..to the majority of all the Democrats...
Obama's poor judgment in friends, associates and voting i.e., Rezko, Wright, Nufarm, Bush's stupid oil bill, oil lobbyists , not an environmentalist that is for sure, do not require skin color...to assess.
He is from the most corrupt political machine in the country and barred his black female competition from opposing him with ballot petition manipulation...and old Chicago trick...to recognize home grown sleaze does not require skin color to assess.
Is easily corruptible, took the oil money and it personal pinnate of perks..but Hillary passed on it, and the sleazy gifts and vacations that the oil lobbyists offered her...he couldn't resist, but he did try to pretend it all never happened.....and his skin color was not required for that assessment either.
None of this is ancient history...this is current...she has learned from her mistakes, and has managed to keep her nose clean much better than him and it doesn't require a look at skin color to figure that out.
Her campaign is about the people, his is about himself, he flip flops on the issues so much, it is hard to keep a straight face when he talks, his skin color surely is not accountable for that assessment, that much is clear.
Why would skin color factor in to any assessment of him, when his duplicity, and corruption are self-evident? Except of course to those who are in denial and refuse to see it. Then perhaps skin color would be their focus for why the rest of us don't think he is worthy of representing the democrats in the general election. Obviously to most of us, convolution does not equate to clarity, when assessing our candidate
Look this is not about hate or fear, for most who support Hillary, and it is blind to think so. Grasping at straws and obviously denying the hard truth and reality...is no way to behave....Obama is simply not the best choice for the democrats to win in 08...and most of them already know that. Eventually time will tell. There are enough differences between our two candidates in order to assess them...without looking at their skin, or gender...lol
Am once again attempting to hammer it home...
The Chinese have behaved like tyranical idiots, holding these games hostage as a license to kill, mame and torture as they please. Someone needs to standup to their complete ignorance of humanity, and no one is poised in a better position to do so right now than the sponsors, who incidentally really don't need to profit from games in a country that kills and tortures peaceful dissidents on a regular basis.
Tibet was invaded, has been occupied in the worst way, nothing like what we call occupation in Iraq.. it's culture and people deliberately sought out, desecrated, killed and tortured.....and now there are fun and games to be played, tourists, and money to be made??
Turns my stomach.
We can talk about the slaughter in Darfur if you want.. but...
The hell in Darfur is the result of Sudan, it's own government, hiring the sickle swinging, pistol packing, pony passe janjaweed to keep rule. Ever since that Frankenstein of a butt headed solution out grew it's own petri dish, Darfur has been on the chopping block to the highest bidder which without interference, will most likely be the janjaweed. Lest we stop short of invading that friggin country too, and I don't see why not with that kind of mentality.... why not Iran for that matter, why not Korea...when is a clear line drawn and never crossed? Never I guess, but it no excuse sit by and do nothing when we clearly have some leverage...and can do something..
As far as I know we are not scheduled for synchronized swimming and weight lifting in Darfur, nor are we in active trade deals with them... nor do we owe them money....Darfur, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, are crazy wacked out places...but we have, at the very least, put some effort into avoiding the obvious hypocrisy of playing a game of baseball, while people are in jail, killed and tortured for speaking out against Chinese tyranny ... we could make a difference in more than one way....I admire the Brits...for their refusal to attend, shows common sense and human clarity.
The Chinese have behaved like tyranical idiots, holding these games hostage as a license to kill, mame and torture as they please. Someone needs to standup to their complete ignorance of humanity, and no one is poised in a better position to do so right now than the sponsors, who incidentally really don't need to profit from games in a country that kills and tortures peaceful dissidents on a regular basis.
Tibet was invaded, has been occupied in the worst way, nothing like what we call occupation in Iraq.. it's culture and people deliberately sought out, desecrated, killed and tortured.....and now there are fun and games to be played, tourists, and money to be made??
Turns my stomach.
We can talk about the slaughter in Darfur if you want.. but...
The hell in Darfur is the result of Sudan, it's own government, hiring the sickle swinging, pistol packing, pony passe janjaweed to keep rule. Ever since that Frankenstein of a butt headed solution out grew it's own petri dish, Darfur has been on the chopping block to the highest bidder which without interference, will most likely be the janjaweed. Lest we stop short of invading that friggin country too, and I don't see why not with that kind of mentality.... why not Iran for that matter, why not Korea...when is a clear line drawn and never crossed? Never I guess, but it no excuse sit by and do nothing when we clearly have some leverage...and can do something..
As far as I know we are not scheduled for synchronized swimming and weight lifting in Darfur, nor are we in active trade deals with them... nor do we owe them money....Darfur, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, are crazy wacked out places...but we have, at the very least, put some effort into avoiding the obvious hypocrisy of playing a game of baseball, while people are in jail, killed and tortured for speaking out against Chinese tyranny ... we could make a difference in more than one way....I admire the Brits...for their refusal to attend, shows common sense and human clarity.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst, he writes....
"The red states that Obama won in the Democratic primaries have been the guaranteed pathway for Republican presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. to win and stay in the White House. Their 170 to 200 electoral votes are in the GOP's coffers before the first vote is cast on Election Day. The states are so bankable and reliable for the GOP that it's the rarest of rare sighting to see a GOP presidential candidate even bother to traipse through the states in the stretch run of the campaign.
Clinton's strategy to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency is the exact opposite of Obama's. She recognized that the small Western and Southern states he won are not in play for the Democrats; so why squander time, energy and limited resources in a pointless chase of votes there. Better to spend the time and resources trying to wrest Ohio, Florida, and now even Texas with its surging numbers of Latino voters, solidly pro Clinton, from the GOP. Meanwhile there's Pennsylvania. It's a big, swing state that can make a difference.
A huge percent of Pennsylvania voters are blue collar, anti-big government, socially conservative, pro defense, and intently patriotic, and there's a tormenting history of a racial polarization in the state. Take Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, heavily black and Latino, out of the vote equation, and Pennsylvania would be rock solid red state Republican. Clinton's likely win there means far more than Obama's side show wins in the red states.
Pennsylvania's electoral votes and those of the other swing states can make the difference if the race is on the line. Florida and Ohio cinched Bush's two election victories in 2000 and 2004.
Democrats are also ecstatic at the near record turnout by Democrats in some of the red states that Obama won compared to the relatively lower turnout in the Republican primaries in those states. This also means little. Far fewer Republicans turned out in the Republican primaries in the presidential election battles of Bush Sr. in 1988 and Reagan in 1980, and Bush Jr. in 2000. All three were still elected."
"The red states that Obama won in the Democratic primaries have been the guaranteed pathway for Republican presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. to win and stay in the White House. Their 170 to 200 electoral votes are in the GOP's coffers before the first vote is cast on Election Day. The states are so bankable and reliable for the GOP that it's the rarest of rare sighting to see a GOP presidential candidate even bother to traipse through the states in the stretch run of the campaign.
Clinton's strategy to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency is the exact opposite of Obama's. She recognized that the small Western and Southern states he won are not in play for the Democrats; so why squander time, energy and limited resources in a pointless chase of votes there. Better to spend the time and resources trying to wrest Ohio, Florida, and now even Texas with its surging numbers of Latino voters, solidly pro Clinton, from the GOP. Meanwhile there's Pennsylvania. It's a big, swing state that can make a difference.
A huge percent of Pennsylvania voters are blue collar, anti-big government, socially conservative, pro defense, and intently patriotic, and there's a tormenting history of a racial polarization in the state. Take Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, heavily black and Latino, out of the vote equation, and Pennsylvania would be rock solid red state Republican. Clinton's likely win there means far more than Obama's side show wins in the red states.
Pennsylvania's electoral votes and those of the other swing states can make the difference if the race is on the line. Florida and Ohio cinched Bush's two election victories in 2000 and 2004.
Democrats are also ecstatic at the near record turnout by Democrats in some of the red states that Obama won compared to the relatively lower turnout in the Republican primaries in those states. This also means little. Far fewer Republicans turned out in the Republican primaries in the presidential election battles of Bush Sr. in 1988 and Reagan in 1980, and Bush Jr. in 2000. All three were still elected."
I am going to try to hammer this home, one more time...because this is so IMPORTANT.
I know I have been "harping" on Womens Issues for the past couple of days... so pardon me while I get this last one out.
March, Women in History Month, is over now, but Women's Rights needs to be an issue all year long.
VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION, (part I, para. 18)
adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna,.....
From the folks at Amnesty International.... thanks for all your work...
"Recent efforts to document the real situation of women worldwide have produced some alarming statistics on the economic and social gaps between women and men. Women are the majority of the world's poor and the number of women living in rural poverty has increased by 50 per cent since 1975. Women are the majority of the world's illiterate; the number rose from 543 million to 597 million between 1970 and 1985. Women in Asia and Africa work 13 hours a week more than men and are mostly unpaid. Worldwide, women earn 30 to 40 per cent less than men for doing equal work. Women hold between 10 and 20 per cent of managerial and administrative jobs worldwide and less than 20 per cent of jobs in manufacturing. Women make up less than 5 per cent of the world's heads of State. Women's unpaid housework and family labour, if counted as productive output in national accounts, would increase measures of global output by 25 to 30 per cent."
This is one of the major factors of change for the people of Iraq... women have become empowered with education and employment in ways that were never before possible...
A religion and culture that sanctions rape and other violent crimes against women, discriminates against women, objectifies women, subjugates women, exploits women, enslaves women, is no culture, it is anti-culture....
it is pre-neanderthal.
These nations who treat women poorly have hindered their own evolution, culturally, economically, educationally and in every other aspect of evolution as well. They have unquestionably hurt themselves by hurting their women. Even in Saudia Arabia, Qutar etc... where money is plentiful.... barbarism, backwards thinking and de-evolution continues due to fear of women..
Come on guys...no vote, no license, no education, no voice?
The progress women have made in countries like Iraq cannot be allowed to reverse as it did back in the 80's, nor should it be hemmed or bridled, they have an enormous amount of catching up to do.
This is not about raising children, I am 100% an advocate for stay at home moms, and intend to continue advocate for programs that support stay at home moms, especially for the first 3 years of a child's life. This is not about women choosing care for their families, not at all. Staying at home for kids is not submissive or subservient. There is no job that requires more patience, tolerance, wisdom and understanding than raising a human being.
This is about the freedom to choose education and employment. This is about options, and equal pay for equal work. This is about civil rights.
For all the millions of women who have yet to discover their own choice for independence through education and/or employment, may they find their voice too, one day soon.
Good article on the topic.
see link in comment below.
and..thanks for baring with me one more time...
I know I have been "harping" on Womens Issues for the past couple of days... so pardon me while I get this last one out.
March, Women in History Month, is over now, but Women's Rights needs to be an issue all year long.
VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION, (part I, para. 18)
adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna,.....
From the folks at Amnesty International.... thanks for all your work...
"Recent efforts to document the real situation of women worldwide have produced some alarming statistics on the economic and social gaps between women and men. Women are the majority of the world's poor and the number of women living in rural poverty has increased by 50 per cent since 1975. Women are the majority of the world's illiterate; the number rose from 543 million to 597 million between 1970 and 1985. Women in Asia and Africa work 13 hours a week more than men and are mostly unpaid. Worldwide, women earn 30 to 40 per cent less than men for doing equal work. Women hold between 10 and 20 per cent of managerial and administrative jobs worldwide and less than 20 per cent of jobs in manufacturing. Women make up less than 5 per cent of the world's heads of State. Women's unpaid housework and family labour, if counted as productive output in national accounts, would increase measures of global output by 25 to 30 per cent."
This is one of the major factors of change for the people of Iraq... women have become empowered with education and employment in ways that were never before possible...
A religion and culture that sanctions rape and other violent crimes against women, discriminates against women, objectifies women, subjugates women, exploits women, enslaves women, is no culture, it is anti-culture....
it is pre-neanderthal.
These nations who treat women poorly have hindered their own evolution, culturally, economically, educationally and in every other aspect of evolution as well. They have unquestionably hurt themselves by hurting their women. Even in Saudia Arabia, Qutar etc... where money is plentiful.... barbarism, backwards thinking and de-evolution continues due to fear of women..
Come on guys...no vote, no license, no education, no voice?
The progress women have made in countries like Iraq cannot be allowed to reverse as it did back in the 80's, nor should it be hemmed or bridled, they have an enormous amount of catching up to do.
This is not about raising children, I am 100% an advocate for stay at home moms, and intend to continue advocate for programs that support stay at home moms, especially for the first 3 years of a child's life. This is not about women choosing care for their families, not at all. Staying at home for kids is not submissive or subservient. There is no job that requires more patience, tolerance, wisdom and understanding than raising a human being.
This is about the freedom to choose education and employment. This is about options, and equal pay for equal work. This is about civil rights.
For all the millions of women who have yet to discover their own choice for independence through education and/or employment, may they find their voice too, one day soon.
Good article on the topic.
see link in comment below.
and..thanks for baring with me one more time...
There is a great divide between soldiers regarding left and right, am guessing moderation is most suitable in the case of Iraq, especially given the fact that pulling out without careful planning could reverse progress which was duly noted during today's hearing.
Both my brother and dad, were in the Air force, and all my cousins and nephews served as mandated in Norway... not a one of them (living) believes in pulling out of Iraq without carefully insuring the well being of those who have chosen democracy and equal rights over the warped archaic subversion that held power prior to occupation..
Yes occupation, that is true, but now that we have stirred up this hornets nest, when our Dem comes into office She/He must carefully plan for the safety the people of Iraq. I doubt the European/Middle Eastern/Asian/ North and South American countries with equal rights and freedoms want to see another blood in Iraq like the one that Bush's Desert Storm left behind.
It is not accurate to say the military wants left as Commander and Chief. Understandably the military wants someone who is responsible to both sides, and able to work with both sides.
Hillary Clinton worked with the very same man who prosecuted her husband in order to create the most comprehensive plan for vets to date. The ability to overcome oneself and personality are what is required to bridge the great divide. We have only one candidate who has already exemplified this on many levels and throughout many issues.
The stronger candidate for
Iraq
Vets
Economics
Education
Energy
Environment
and Foreign Relations
Clinton 08
Both my brother and dad, were in the Air force, and all my cousins and nephews served as mandated in Norway... not a one of them (living) believes in pulling out of Iraq without carefully insuring the well being of those who have chosen democracy and equal rights over the warped archaic subversion that held power prior to occupation..
Yes occupation, that is true, but now that we have stirred up this hornets nest, when our Dem comes into office She/He must carefully plan for the safety the people of Iraq. I doubt the European/Middle Eastern/Asian/ North and South American countries with equal rights and freedoms want to see another blood in Iraq like the one that Bush's Desert Storm left behind.
It is not accurate to say the military wants left as Commander and Chief. Understandably the military wants someone who is responsible to both sides, and able to work with both sides.
Hillary Clinton worked with the very same man who prosecuted her husband in order to create the most comprehensive plan for vets to date. The ability to overcome oneself and personality are what is required to bridge the great divide. We have only one candidate who has already exemplified this on many levels and throughout many issues.
The stronger candidate for
Iraq
Vets
Economics
Education
Energy
Environment
and Foreign Relations
Clinton 08
Posts By Month
Posts
