There is an unspoken position on this site amongst those that do not support the democratic party's nominee.
Some say - in all honesty that its experience or inconsistency, or too new, too young, among other things.
That's all well and good. But what I am searching for is the logic behind why a person that is a democrat would counter vote republican or abstain from voting in an effort to make a point or teach a lesson?
That's the point and intent of my blog and the basis for my question.
Stop and think about it for a minute and then "come correct" as my children would say.
I want to know - how a concerted effort to "punish" not only the DNC, but the entire party - hell - nation for that matter - is going to benefit any one of us.
You are not idiots and know full well the consequence of another republican administration, yet you continue to remain visceral and downright obnoxious in your not only your attack of Senator Obama, but your hellbent commitment to be a part of that which desires he fail.
I understand full well that there are those within the democratic party that do not support Barack as the nominee - that goes without saying. The same would be true if HRC were the nominee - and that goes without saying.
But to purposely and vehemently seek the democratic party's presidential nominee's political demise at any cost - by those that proclaim to be democrats fringes on being malicious.
There is nothing positive in protesting with vicious attacks amongst those that are supposed to be on your side.
All else aside: the personal insults, the whining on all sides, the smears, slanders, bullying, push down and push back are nothing more than an insult on the intelligence of the majority of those that support Senator Obama.
It perputuates - albeit I stay silent on this as some just can not grasp this idea and discuss it as the reality - what Tim Wise makes effort to expose:
"When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque."
I said all this to say - it's time to for those to stop finding ways to destroy our party from the inside out for a so called greater good.
No other party's core constituency (older and/or white women) at any time in history has demonstrated the mean spirited attitude and ill intent than those - (and I am speaking to anti-Obama white women on THIS site, at this juncture) have demonstrated on this blog alone.
It's a pitiful - embaressing shame.
Clinton makes pitch to letter carriers in Boston for Obama
Clinton told nearly 10,000 members of the National Association of Letter Carriers, gathered at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center for their biennial convention, that electing Obama would mean expanding healthcare access, preventing further outsourcing of government jobs, and improving the lives of working people across the country.
"The best way to stand up for everyone who feels invisible is to make sure we have a Democratic president taking the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009," she said.
The NALC, which claims about 300,000 active and retired members, is one of many large labor unions that supported Clinton during the long and sometimes bitterly contested nomination contest that ended in early June, when Clinton dropped out and endorsed Obama. Nearly a month ago, the two former rivals held a highly choreographed rally in Unity, N.H., to urge the Democrats to join forces to beat John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee.
Since then, Clinton has appeared at a pair of Obama fund-raisers in New York City and aides said her calendar is quickly filling with other events. She has also brought her unity message to the American Federation of Teachers convention and the League of United Latin American Citizens convention earlier this month.
But polls indicate the former rivals still have work to do in energizing the party. An Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released this month found that just 12 percent of former Clinton supporters were excited about the campaign, even though Obama's supporters were generally much more energized than McCain's.
Awkwardness over finances also still exists. Campaign finance records show Clinton loaned her campaign another $1 million last month, bringing her total personal loans to her campaign to $13.2 million, and she still owes vendors another $12 million. Obama has asked his top donors to help Clinton pay down her debts, but it doesn't appear to be helping: The campaign received only $2.7 million in June.
Her appearance yesterday was suffused with nostalgia. The union presented Clinton with a sentimental video of her on the campaign trail and unanimously voted to make her an honorary union member. She accepted, inviting members to flag her down if they ever need a helping hand along their routes. But she never lost sight of her message.
Among those cheering were Lucy James and Leslie Hammett, both Democratic letter carriers in their 50s from Las Vegas who had worked for Clinton's campaign in Nevada. "I've got foreclosed houses all over my route," said Hammett. " 'For Sale' signs - it's like a forest of them. They're losing their jobs, they're losing their homes."
Others were unmoved by Clinton's speech. Gary Griffis, a 59-year-old Republican from Cincinnati, kept quiet when the rest of the members endorsed Obama yesterday because he didn't want to be rude. But he said he plans to vote for McCain in November because he feels Obama is ill prepared to be president. "I think the security of this country is far greater than my job," he said.
Lisa Wangsness can be reached at lwangsness@globe.com.
********************
Win some - lose some - even those that support hrc - inspite of their reason for doing to - can not bring themselves to admit - that the stakes are just to high to for one minute conceive that another republican administration is the answer.
How do you "win" a war - when you are fighting against someone that would go to these lengths?
And at what point does someone say enough is enough - stop the senseless killing and injury?
Can it even be done? Is it better just to let them fight it out for 4000 more years? They are fighting for a belief - how do you "kill" a belief?
*********************
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A Palestinian man went on a rampage Tuesday in downtown Jerusalem, ramming a construction vehicle into cars and buses before he was shot and killed near the hotel where Sen. Barack Obama is scheduled to stay Tuesday night.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/22/israel.attack/index.html
Anyone having this issue in their home state?
Like it or Not: Lexington Approves Annexation Last Edited: Monday, 21 Jul 2008, 9:31 PM EDT Created: Monday, 21 Jul 2008, 9:31 PM EDT
Lexington Annexation Opposition SideBar City Hall Showdown: Annex Opponents Take on City Lexington Annexation Issue Heats Up Lexington Proceeds With Annexation By LEAH BENO FOX8 News LEXINGTON, N.C. (WGHP) –
City council members unanimously approved annexing 2,000 people into the city limits. Monday's vote is far from the final step in what's become the latest war cry against forced annexation in North Carolina. Those fighting the annexation wore red to show their unity. "We see this as a trend in North Carolina, as cities try to cope with their budgets they have to grab land outside to get taxes keep them alive in the city," said Mike Bralkowski, a member of Citizens United Against Forced Annexation. The annexation includes four areas of Davidson County into the city, and will increase the population by ten percent. "We've talked and we've listened, despite what people said," said council member Ed Ward. "We are trying to do what's right for the city," said Mayor John Walker Jr. "Unfortunately for these folks they are going to have to start to pay taxes." The opposition group said it plans to file a lawsuit against the city within the next 60 days. Efforts by state lawmakers to put a one-year moratorium on forced annexation failed to make it out of a senate committee before the general assembly convened Friday. North Carolina is one of four states that allows cities to expand their limits without a public vote.
Lives lost at home Kevin Graman Staff writer July 21, 2008 Chart: Number of suicides, by year and branch (JPG) A distraught 26-year-old Navy veteran who had a history of mental illness hanged himself within three hours of seeking help at Spokane Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The July 7 death of Lucas Senescall was the sixth suicide this year of a veteran who had contact with the Spokane VA, a marked increase in such deaths.
One of their bloggers: PJ Gladnick
The mindset - if it's negative - and it will start an uprorar - then regardless who the one was that said - let's post it right?
There was a time I found an article about HRC and posted the comments. Everyone on this site that supported HRC jumped on me feet first. I had no idea the author of the comments was an "arch enemy" of the Clintons - I was just pointing out his opinion.
Nevertheless, I learned to check into the authors of the information - their history - and how they where influenced.
Take for example: Robert Tracinski. In 1996, Robert Tracinski joined TIA as its new editor, and at the end of 2001, he became its owner and publisher, launching an exciting new format, bringing TIA a more visually stimulating style and a more ambitious intellectual scope.
He has made the observation in 1996:
"Observing the events of todayâ€"the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solutionâ€"I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s."
Sounds a little - contrary to the current democratic position just a bit, wouldn't you say? Possibly even a little libertarian in tone....
*********
Not a trick question - picking your brain....
Granted, I did just ask the question - ONCE AGAIN - but it keeps popping back up by folks on all sides.
I wonder if - for 30 minutes - if we really want to get to the bottom of racism - we first commit to a goal of what we are trying to attain.
Are we just trying to figure out who the bigots and racists folks are - or are we trying to understand why it still exsists in 2008 and we still get so upset about it?
Everyone is hyper-sensitive to race issues - some more than others. There is a reason for that.
I think if we step back and try to figure out why that is - rather than accusing someone of a racist - we make progress.
No one on this site can admit to being a racist - to do so - would have you ignored by the general PB community.
To add - I don't think anyone that legitimately and consistenly posts on this site is such a thing as a racist.
Now - there is a racial paranoia that may be in effect, but racism - hardly.
I repeat - I see no on on this site as a racist - everyone here has value and deserves respect for who they are.
While we disagree on issues and debate fact versus fiction - we are not a racist hate group.
No one - not a one.
Without naming names or pointing fingers - is anyone honestly committed to an adult discussion?
It while it may be a passionate discussion - that goes without saying - but if the goal is to find out why this is such a heated topic to discuss in the first place - again - progress MIGHT be made towards an understanding.
I've posted that I believe the Iraq war to be an illegal one. Here is the pro and con to that belief.
Legality of Preemptive Warfare PRO: "Almost since the moment that the [1945 UN Charter] was adopted, states have used force in circumstances that simply cannot be squared with the charter paradigm... Given this historical record of violations, it seems very difficult to conclude that the charter framework is truly controlling of state practice, and if it is not controlling, it cannot be considered to reflect existing international law... For all practical purposes, the U.N. Charter framework is dead. If this is indeed the case, then the Bush doctrine of preemption does not violate international law because the charter framework is no longer reflected in state practice." -- Anthony Arend Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University "International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force," The Washington Quarterly Spring 2003
CON: "We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances..." -- Ulf BernitzNicolas Espejo-YaksicAgnes HurwitzVaughan LoweBen SaulKatja ZieglerJames CrawfordSusan MarksRoger O'KeefeChristine ChinkinGerry SimpsonDeborah CassMatthew CravenPhilippe SandsRalph WildePierre-Marie Dupuy 16 International Law Professors "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian Mar. 7, 2003
http://usiraq.procon.org/viewtopic.asp
http://democrats.senate.gov/
BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.
Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Maliki, who is due to visit Germany this week, has suggested a timetable should be set for a U.S. withdrawal but U.S. officials have been more cautious, despite an improving security situation.
The White House said on Friday President George W. Bush and Maliki had agreed that a security deal under negotiation should set a "time horizon" for meeting "aspirational goals" for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq.
"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.
Some five years after the U.S.-led invasion, there are still some 146,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
(Reporting by Madeline Chambers; Editing by Jon Boyle)
It goes without saying that if don't learn from our mistakes, we are destined to repeat them.
Someone once said "One of the best ways to judge a president is to ask, did he solve more problems than he created? "
Bush's tax cuts and spending increases turned a $236 billion federal surplus in fiscal 2000 into a deficit. He has increased the debt by over $1.6 Trillion with tax cuts for the rich.
Iraq. By not vetting the pre-war intelligence and properly managing the what took place in Iraq afterwards, Bush has cost us lives and money and not to mention damage our image in the international community. The more unpopular we are - the higher the cost of foreign support. Mark Malloch Brown, the UN's deputy secretary-general, said that suspicion of the United States has grown to the point where "many otherwise quite moderate countries" are inclined to oppose anything we favor.
An "extralegal" war on terror. FISA be damned, but we must prevent terroism. So spying at home is going to be practices that our government will need to be do for years to come. What Bush did was fail to make proper legal provisions for that practice. Another policy to be un-done by the next president. McCain country first huh? His senate record that includes his failure to vote on FISA. " Senator John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, was campaigning in Ohio and did not vote, though he has consistently supported the immunity plan." Isn't that nice of the media? Let off the hook again.
Our next president (Senator BarackObama in my opinion) will be required to un-do all of this damage. This will be long-term guys. General opinion - more than 5 years at the least for balancing the budget. McCain touts: "that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM103_jobsforamericashshs.html
3 million Americans have lost their jobs since Bush took office.
Bush promised to pay down the debt... He promised to create jobs, boost the economy, fight terror "with" war and capture Osama bin Laden. To date, he's done little to make good on these fundamental commitments.
His commitments to policy have actually done the exact opposite.
National Debt - in 2001 $5.7 Trillion. January 2008 $9.2 Trillion.
Americans in Poverty - 2001 31.6 Million. January 2008 36.5 Million.
Un-insured Americans - 2001 38 Million. January 2008 47 Million.
Price of Gas: 2001 $1.39/gallon. July 2008 $3.98/gallon.
View of America abroad - 2001 58.3% viewed America favorably. January 2008 39.2% view America favorably
Great Britains now 56% favorable.
Indonesia now - 30% favorable.
Turkey now 12% favorable.
Germany now 37% favorable.
FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCY 2001 52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
January 2008 60.38% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/24/the-legacy-of-george-w-bushs-presidency
BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.
Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Maliki, who is due to visit Germany this week, has suggested a timetable should be set for a U.S. withdrawal but U.S. officials have been more cautious, despite an improving security situation.
The White House said on Friday President George W. Bush and Maliki had agreed that a security deal under negotiation should set a "time horizon" for meeting "aspirational goals" for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq.
"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.
Some five years after the U.S.-led invasion, there are still some 146,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
(Reporting by Madeline Chambers; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Posts