Like millions across the world, I was glued to the TV last night. CNN did an incredible job in covering the elections night. When Obama was announced the elect president I jumped off the couch and the first words I uttered were, “I have a huge respect for this country.”Indeed, Obama’s victory was a victory to the entire world that has become fed up and tired of Bush’s policies. Looking at Obama taking the stage and addressing his supporters in Chicago left me with a great feeling that this man changed the history of America. Now change can be good and bad. Bush and his administration did their part (bad of course) but Obama represented the good change. He wrote history like Martin Luther King and the founding fathers. All I could think of at that moment was how great the American democracy is and how the American people moved to the next step which should have been done way earlier. Nevertheless, they did it. They forgot about their race differences and finally voted for an African American. American democracy has entirely become the model of all democracies around the world.
Obama’s speech was very moving. The very first sentence made me respect him even more.
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.Last night’s victory was indeed the answer to all those who had ever suspected American democracy. As for McCain, as much as I didn’t like him, as much as I highly respected him after hearing his speech. I commend him for his respectful speech. His words showed he was not a loser but someone who truly loves his country.
There are no enough words to put on this thread. So I’ll just say that last night was a historic moment not only for the United States, but for the entire world. I am glad I had the chance to witness that great event in my lifetime. The entire world looks to America differently now. They see the new great, bright face of America, not what they used to see for the last eight years. Obama’s victory brought the world together to love America again.
blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com
47 Comments:
This is a celebration the whole world can share and I'm glad to share it with you a little. I feel like we're waking up from a very dark nightmare. There are several things I don't agree with Obama on, but I supported him, in part, because of how his election would restore our reputation in the world. We may be a large nation with national resources, but we are weak when we are alone. I am so proud to have cast my vote for the first black president in the U.S. Today, after a difficult 8 years, I am so proud to be an American again. It is a moment of celebration for the whole world. It's a new day and to quote you... it's a new world. Congratulations to us all.
Well, thanks to the time difference I was nodding off when Obama was speaking; all I remember from that speech is that it seemed to go on and on, lol, I was way too far gone to notice content.
When McCain spoke I was still awake though, and as you said it was a good speech.
I have never seen a more gracious loser before - quite in contrast to his booing followers I might add.
YES! I completely agree. This is truly a victory for the entire world, and that is why so many people in this world are celebrating, and feeling that this is a victory for themselves. When a half-black, half white man, who lived in Indonesia, Hawaii and Kansas and had an Asian step father, and who's name is Barak Hussein Obama wins, who would not feel that he is included in this great victory?!
I am so proud of America, and of its ability to overcome prejudice, stereotypes, bias and all else.
Good for Obama and good for the people who voted for him. But in my view he is not a good choice he is just better then McCain and that's just it.
The real work starts now. And its not Obamas work that will change the US its the U.S people who have to start getting back their country. How? By actively working on putting pressure on Obama and the democrats to start building up U.S infrastructure, health care and schools etc. If this pressure is absent then we will fall back to the same as usual. Meaning its big corporations, AIPAC and corrupt greedy politicians interests that run U.S national and International policies.
I think the most important lesson is that this is how to change a regime. A properly run election, with no violence, and no armed guards at the polling stations. Whether the transition is from right-wing to centre, or (another time) the reverse, is less important. Historically, it is obviously important that the US can elect someone who is not 100% white. I wonder if they could elect a non-Christian? Not yet, I think.
i just returned from canvasing for the Obama campaign in richmond virginia for a week and i can't tell you how wonderful it was. what a gorgeous wonderful people. the celebrations in the streets and clubs and homes all over town after it was announced, all over america. the day after i could not speak, literally! my voice was completely gone from all the celebtrating, i have never experienced my country so happy, so proud to be american, not in my lifetime.
nadia, yes, it is now time to make the biggest difference. Obama's website has now changed
http://www.change.gov/
Open Government
It’s Your America: Share Your Ideas
The story of the campaign and this historic moment has been your story. Share your story and your ideas, and be part of bringing positive lasting change to this country.
there is also a link to apply for jobs to bring about change. i really hope he listens to us.
I was very pleased with Obama's election! I had been worried for weeks that McCain might still win. I thought that Palin was completely unqualified to be President and her extreme religious views really scare me. But, the election of Barak Obama and the increase of the number of Democrats in the House and Senate were all very good things. America now has the chance to move back toward a better course for the future. We also have the chance to restore the confidence of the American people and people from all over the world that America is a nation that can live up to its ideals.
Oh my God! You guys have to read this story:
Your request is being processed...
Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html
Gosh! God bless America for not choosing McCain!
His words showed he was not a loser but someone who truly loves his country.
Too bad the tone of his campaign wasn't so respectable.
Bassam, the republicans are imploding. they realize their party is doomed and there are members in the party who do not want palin to be leading the party vs others who think she makes a compelling candidate for the future of the party.
what i find unusual about this report is it comes from fox news and you have rethugs arguing about her and her impact, including gop thumpers like rush limbaugh, the holy grail of the mindless racist red meaters.
should make for some very interesting newsbites over the next few months, if not longer.
check this out (i love it when he calls the party ignorant)
they keep making excuses for her.
I'm glad you liked the show, because that's all it was.
Courtesy and tradition dictates that I give Obama a chance to build his cabinet and "get his feet wet", which is more than the opposition gave George Bush. Bush made a lot of bad moves trying to appease the liberals and suffered the consequences.
I don't like Obama, because I don't fall for flowery rhetoric with nothing to back it up.
I don't like Obama, because he was insulated from proper screening by the press, and he managed to silence critics and expunge unfavorable commentary about him. No one either pro or con was allowed to comment on their associations with Obama.
That being said, I don't trust McCain politically. I trust his patriotism but not his judgement, politics or loyalty.
Great show, at least for an opening act. How long before the audience starts walking out?
Bush made a lot of bad moves trying to appease the liberals and suffered the consequences.
could you please give us some examples of your assertions regard appeasing liberals? i can't think of anything he appeased on, in fact he used signing statements in an unprecedented fashion overriding congress and the will of the people, all the time.
he did however make lots of bad moves, many of them on purpose. furthermore he has not paid any price, he should be tried at the hague for war crimes wrt abu ghraib , gitmo and other programs he signed off on along w/lying to the american public and dragging us into a war based on lies. that doesn't even address the suffering he inflicted on iraqis.
Bassam,
If Obama is wise he will stick to a moderate, centrist course. That is my hope, as it would have been for McCain, if he had won.
Having said that, I was moved by how much this election meant to people in the African-American community. While I voted for McCain, I am happy for them.
Oh and it is rather nice to see such a positive post from you, too. :)
We stood up in our living room and cheered when the announcement came that Obama won the elections.
I know that he will not be able to fix the mess that was left him overnight, but I truly believe that his heart is in it to do what it takes to get us in the right direction.
I also think that he will reach across party lines to unite this country once again and will mend our image to the rest of the world which I also think is very important.
But yes, we as citizens have to do our part by staying on him to make sure he stays on track.
If Obama is wise he will stick to a moderate, centrist course.
if he is wise he will stick to the agenda he campaigned on. the one people voted for. this is where the center is. the gop like to call their policies 'centrist' and 'moderate'. this election proved the majority of citizens disagree.
if he is wise he will stick to the agenda he campaigned on. the one people voted for. this is where the center is. the gop like to call their policies 'centrist' and 'moderate'. this election proved the majority of citizens disagree.
lol!
Obama won for any number of reasons. I don't think being a "centrist" was high on that list. However, there is the real possibility that he is smart enough to understand that leaning too far towards one side or the other could cost him.
I've never heard too many actual Republicans refer to themselves as moderate or "centrist". The base of that party like to call themselves "conservative". And they believe that the country is basically "center-right".
Btw, what did you think of Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel for chief-of-staff?
Btw, what did you think of Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel for chief-of-staff?
i remain hopeful. since one of the most gruesome situations in the world is the inability of bring peace and solution to the IS/PAL situation it is vital Obama has inroads considered credible to BOTH parties of the conflict. emanuel could either serve to further peace, which would be in our best interest, or serve to allow Israel to continue on its non progressive path. A lot of that has to do w/Obama's will. I do have confidence he will serve to further Obama's agenda. specifically what Obama's agenda is wrt furthering Israel's security remains to be seen. their election in feb is very important of course.
that aside i would imaging since they are very close, both operating out of Illinois, it seems like a natural choice. i have my reservations about emanuel's place in the dem party. he ruffled feathers supporting more conservative dlc dems who did not get elected vs the progressive dems who were elected w/the help of the grass roots via deans 50 state strategy for moving the party in a more progressive direction.
iow, it is a 'we'll see' situation. i would be bowing at his feet if he helped instigate a working solution, on the other hand he did introduce legislation against iran that was not grounded in sound theory imho. especially wrt news released recently
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated.
The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.
The new evidence of possible fraud has increased pressure within the IAEA secretariat to distance the agency from the laptop documents, according to a Vienna-based diplomatic source close to the IAEA
this is the same sort of fabrication that landed us at war w/iraq. israel and the US are different countries, and therfor should have different agendas. everyone knows aipac works thru congress to forward israels agenda and emanuel is affiliated w/apaic.
we need to keep our eye on the pie, the pie being the US agenda of a 2 state strategy.
does that answer your question?
I've never heard too many actual Republicans refer to themselves as moderate or "centrist".
no, but anything that deviates from their agenda they consider liberal, socialist. perhaps you could suggest some republican fiscal agenda promoted by republicans you would not consider 'centerist' or 'moderate' but instead conservative.
the bush administration code word for 'moderate' arabs was basically anyone who went along w/the US freetrade occupation agenda ala cheney style. what the heck is so centurist or moderate about that. it is totally gop. they call social security socialism and don't consider it moderate. the american public is is looking forward to some new deal type situation to alleviate the job problem and deal w/our infrastructure problems. if they were 'center-right' 62% of them would not have responded to a pole recently they expect more government intervention to deal w/these problems. when bush was trying to privatize social security he would have had more support. how is this aligned w/the concept the country is 'center right'.
what is your definition, fiscally, of 'center right'? not taxing the rich? doesn't it seem if the country was center right that would be reflected in the outcome of the election?
lyn daaarling. i recently read something about W.E.A.R. i thought you would get a kick out of.
this is going to be sort of like "Glengarry Glen Ross" crossed with a Keystone Cops movie.
Grab your popcorn, folks. This is going to be fun.
read the post and enjoy. then tell me which of these categories borders on moderate. the useful idiots?
i remain hopeful. since one of the most gruesome situations in the world is the inability of bring peace and solution to the IS/PAL situation...
I think part of the problem with that whole situation is that no one can really bring peace, or a solution to the situation, without the cooperation of both of the parties involved.
If you are willing to keep an open mind about Emanuel, than you can understand how I am willing to keep an open mind about Obama. It all depends on his future policy.
what is your definition, fiscally, of 'center right'?
I think the term "center-right" refers to more than just the fiscal part of the equation.
In the past the GOP has usually been the party calling for less government intervention and lower taxes. They were in favor of a balanced budget, etc. During Reagan's first term he cut taxes, but after realizing the hit the budget was taking he ended up raising taxes (although not as much as he had cut in his first term), in his second term. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq they have gotten further away from that "balanced budget" agenda.
the american public is is looking forward to some new deal type situation to alleviate the job problem and deal w/our infrastructure problems.
I think we all understand that spending on infrastructure must be a priority. Obviously, living in Minnesota, with the collapse of the 35W bridge, it is something I am in favor of. I voted in this election for the Republican in my district who voted for the raise in taxes here to pay for road and bridge repair. He went against his party to do so. That took guts.
The jobs problem will probably not be alleviated until we have worked through the deleveraging that is going on. Or in other words until the economy starts to pick up again. We overdosed on debt and it's going to take awhile to work through that. Not to mention the foolish, if not to say, criminal negeligence, showed by some financial institutions with the derivative and credit default swap markets.
Center-right also refers to social concerns as well.
Personally I am pro-choice. Which you may remember. I think the country has been moving away from allowing unconditional abortion, though. This is more of a right-wing conservative view, IMO.
However, from what I remember from polls, the majority of Americans support stem-cell research. Which would be more of a centrist, left-wing view. Interesting, no?
Also, I would hazaard a guess that most Americans approve of a tough stance if we are attacked. You will note that after 9/11 President Bush was very popular when he took a hard line in that regard.
I think that the majority of Americans are of a moderate stance because you will usually see that if a party shifts too far to one side, left or right, in their policies, the country will swing back to the opposite party. You are seeing this now. You are also seeing a shift because, to repeat a phrase coined long ago, "it's the economy, stupid". Even though this mess was a long time in coming, and started long ago with bad decisions made by both parties, the chickens are coming home to roost during a Republican administration, and they are catching the flak.
My advice to any party would be not to rock the boat too much.
Sorry, Annie, no time to look at your link tonight. Gotta run. I'll have to catch you tomorrow...
then tell me which of these categories borders on moderate. the useful idiots?
Actually, I wouldn't label any of those categories as moderate. But then, that was the intent of that author, wasn't it, Annie?
if he is wise he will stick to the agenda he campaigned on. the one people voted for. this is where the center is.
But I will continue to hope that your "centrists" aren't in fact "useful idiots". Despite the spiteful rhetoric of the left-wing camp.
If you are willing to keep an open mind about Emanuel
what do you mean by this? he's a democrat. does he get an extra star from you because he is jewish? is that a priority for you. don't you have to keep an open mind about him because he's not in the gop, your preferred party?
I think part of the problem with that whole situation is that no one can really bring peace, or a solution to the situation, without the cooperation of both of the parties involved.
what about the carrot and the stick. sometimes people need a little push to be more pliable. ever notice how israel keeps on building on land it shouldn't be building on and suffers no recriminations? maybe if we cut off funds or sanctioned them a little they might be more motivated. somehow in the IS/PAL issue one side always gets the stick, and the other the carrot. what's up w/that?.
In the past the GOP has usually been the party calling for less government intervention and lower taxes.
that was then, this is now. obviously this is just rhetorical. it is no longer a reflection of the way the gop rules. these are just code words for no oversite or regulation, it is not related to less government anymore. it takes lots of government to make sure corporations get free reign, especially when you own the corporations.
They were in favor of a balanced budget
then they should have been kissing clinton's feet. they only want a balanced budget when business doesn't have to chip in.
However, from what I remember from polls, the majority of Americans support stem-cell research. Which would be more of a centrist, left-wing view.
stem cell research is not 'left' wing. try telling that to nancy reagan. it is pro science which in my open minded approach likes to think of as bi partisan. the soCON right likes to delve into people's bodies and bedrooms, they have no problem w/government intervention in this regard. they chose this as a 'right' issue, that does not make something like science and evolution 'left' any more than christianity is 'rightwing'. your soCON's are ruining the party.
this is branding, but i know what you mean.
I think the country has been moving away from allowing unconditional abortion
lyn, i can't believe a pro choice person could get so swept away w/this kind of framing propaganda. that is like saying a 'pro death tax'. abortions are never unconditional because pregnancy is a condition. it is extremely rare for people to have late term abortions, ever except in dire circumstances. simply for the whim of it? how rare is this? using laws to enforce restrictions on this procedure, which is almost exclusively used for situations that are potentially lethal to the mother is plain old weird. IOW, the circumstances of the law restricting these is practically never enforced and when it is it could have draconian consequences for the mother. IOW, the purpose of this kind of legislation is used to define 'life', and to change the definition and set standards for other sorts of restrictions. it is called baby steps to get rid of roe vs wade. so no, i do not think the country is 'moving towards' this. i think the extreme right is pushing legislation to use the propaganda of opposing it to harm and isolate politicians, the way it was used against Obama. to be able to talk about crushing a babies scull and all that gruesome stuff that is so very rare. really, what person would want to choose between the life of their wife, and their child. or their own life for that matter. how many people do you know who have decided at 4 or 5 months to get an abortion. this is what you mean by 'unconditional'. and believe me, there are always 'conditions' at this point. it is horrid for anyone to be in this situation, to add a jail sentence onto it, for a mother or a doctor is sick.
Actually, I wouldn't label any of those categories as moderate. But then, that was the intent of that author, wasn't it, Annie?
well, to be fair i don't think the author was reflecting on the principles of the gop. i think they were referring to the party as it stands presently, and you can call it alot of things, but moderate isn't one of them. for what you call 'spiteful rhetoric' i'd say the partisan left has a lot of catching up to do to ever reach the spitefulness of atwater and rovian politics. the gop wrote the book on spiteful rhetoric, now they are getting a taste of their medicine. unfortunately McCain's campaign wallowed in lots of this spiteful jargon during the campaign. his maverickiness wasn't much on display.
But I will continue to hope that your "centrists" aren't in fact "useful idiots".
well, let's check out the definition shall we?
Their likes are people who say the right kind of thing, regardless of their actions. Their dislikes are anyone who tries to correct their understanding of the world.
oh please tell me this isn't the center of the country! but alas, i don't think it is exclusively a charactaristic of rightwingers.
but hey, we're nicer..more compassionate to the living imho, and for the most port we respect the constitution, liberty and privacy more that the current day gop.
i am really looking forward to Obama and the dems getting habeas corpus back and nixing domestic spying. if they don't, who needs them. america will be doomed.
Let's see if he walks the talk. and remember, American system is good for all Americans. I don't know if it is for Iraqis.
does he get an extra star from you because he is jewish? is that a priority for you.
Nope. Doesn't make a difference to me. I thought maybe it might to you.
somehow in the IS/PAL issue one side always gets the stick,
Really? It was my understanding that we have sent money to the Palestinian's as well as to the Israelis. Perhaps the disparity in funds has a little to do with the fact that there have been countries and people in the ME who have desired the destruction of Israel?
then they should have been kissing clinton's feet.
Annie, sweetie, I don't think anyone deserves to have their feet kissed.
They all had a hand in the mess we are in now, including your friend President Bill Clinton who signed off on this. Ever heard of "Bucket Shop laws"? Maybe if our elected respresentatives had understood them better we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. But I suppose it's too much to ask to remember back to 1907.
stem cell research is not 'left' wing. try telling that to nancy reagan.
Aha! So Nancy Reagan is one of those moderate, centrist Republicans that you don't think exist, hmmm? See, I knew you could find one somewhere! ;)
it is extremely rare for people to have late term abortions, ever except in dire circumstances. simply for the whim of it?
I didn't say anything about late term abortion. I was referring to abortion, period. When I referred to "unconditional" I was referring exactly to the fact that a lot of people are using the criteria of incest, rape etc. to judge whether or not an abortion is justified. How many people are choosing abortion because they simply are not prepared to raise and care for a child? You may have a point that there is pressure from the right to make this last reason not a reasonable one. It would be interesting to see how a poll of those who call themselves democrats and those who call themselves republicans break down on this issue.
But given the defeat of the anti-abortion amendments in various states there is hope that at least most people understand that abortion should still be a viable choice for people.
Perhaps the far right have shifted their sights to the gay marriage ban for now.
the gop wrote the book on spiteful rhetoric, now they are getting a taste of their medicine.
How does that type of behavior, on either side, benefit the country? Obama has run on a platform of bi-partisanship. To achieve that people have got to tone down the rheteric on both sides. Yes, the McCain campaign slid into the muck, but so did people like Nancy Pelosi.
but hey, we're nicer..more compassionate to the living imho,
Funny, all those people who are opposed to abortion might actually think the same thing about themselves.
And are you willing to lay down your life for those who can't defend themselves?
and for the most port we respect the constitution, liberty and privacy
Are you willing to defend it with your life? You see, that's what some people from the right doubt about some people on the left.
I was talking to my boss before the election, and he said something rather interesting.
National defense should not even be an issue.
i am really looking forward to Obama and the dems getting habeas corpus back and nixing domestic spying.
We all have our priorities. *shrug* I've done nothing wrong, so I can't say that anyone spying on me would find much of interest.
I too will hope that the next administration will uphold the constitution.
somehow in the IS/PAL issue one side always gets the stick,
Really?
sure. if you can think of any time israel got the stick from us, by all means share it. so what is the down side of not being good neighbors
The announcement amounted to an acknowledgment that public funds were still being spent on the outposts, contrary to government policy and despite a longstanding pledge to the United States to remove at least two dozen settlements immediately.
In the West Bank not including East Jerusalem, there are at least 120 official settlements with more than 260,000 Jewish residents. Most of the international community views all Jewish construction in the areas conquered by Israel in the 1967 war as illegal; the United States regards the settlements as an obstacle to peace.
re rahm Doesn't make a difference to me. I thought maybe it might to you.
well then i am curious what it is about you you like. i have thus far not heard you ever express support for a dem politician. what makes him so special in your eyes. me, i don't think i need to qualify since i generally lean dem unless someone pisses me off, which he has on occassion but i am willing to hold out optimism.
who have desired the destruction of Israel?
yawn. been to the west bank lately.
Ever heard of "Bucket Shop laws"?
ever heard of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. yes clinton signed off on it, but all three of those names are republican. it took 20 years and 200 million lobbiest dollars to deregulate the banking system. then when it became comletely clear what was going on and elliot spitzer wrote about bush preventing the states from suing the OCC from stopping it, within days elliot was 'outted' in a sex scandle, the country was treated to days of endless newscycle banter, it was covered up..and here we are today. so i am not here to sing the praises of clinton, but he did go into the presidency w/a deficiet, and left it with a big surplus. hey if you want to defend the gop, go for it.
So Nancy Reagan is one of those moderate, centrist Republicans that you don't think exist, hmmm?
my point was that the current gop as a political structure at present, does not act moderately, or operate moderately. i just don't think of science as belonging to a party. trying to curtail it belongs to the present day gop, but i do not think of this as part of republican 'theory'. i'm mincing my words here. i do think moderate republicans exist, i just don't think their party at present represents them, or has a place for them do to the influence of the fundies and neocon influence which has dominated party politics. the problem republicans have is the radical right dominates the party. the centerists are at the fringes. the bulk of their support comes from uneducated whites. eliminate the trailor trash, you can't win any elections at all.
How many people are choosing abortion because they simply are not prepared to raise and care for a child?
about 99.9% would be my guess. how is this 'unconditional'?
Yes, the McCain campaign slid into the muck, but so did people like Nancy Pelosi.
pelosi? gee lyn, she doesn't hold a candle to rush coulter rove palin malkin. can't you come up w/someone a little more vile?
And are you willing to lay down your life for those who can't defend themselves?
let's just say i am more interested in a person outside of the womb, like a child in iraq..then i am about someone who doesn't meet my definition of a live person. i'm not in the mood to argue about an embryo that fits in a tablespoon. would i lay down my life for it, or risk my sons to defend this weeks old embryo. no. definitely not.
Are you willing to defend it with your life? You see, that's what some people from the right doubt about some people on the left.
well, i find that extremely amusing. what kind of hypocrite challenges another to defend something with his life he would not defend with his vote. let's have this discussion after the patriot act is repealed, and the military commissions act, and gitmo is closed. but if you are asking me if i would take up arms to protect my constitution, let's just say i am in favor of the 2nd amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
would i personally take up arms, i doubt it. would i be supportive of a defense against those who wish to take away my rights as an american? yes.
We all have our priorities. *shrug* I've done nothing wrong, so I can't say that anyone spying on me would find much of interest.
IOW, the rights protected by the constitution , those that make our country what it is, *shrug* , are not a priority for you. so why would you even wonder if i would lay down my life for them, if they hold so little interest to you?
I was talking to my boss before the election, and he said something rather interesting. National defense should not even be an issue.
your boss would not be alone. a couple weeks ago i read where bush has been seeking to 'expand' the definition of the military job description. something about less 'defense' and more a .. global police or something. i can't remember. some neonut drivel.
whoops, i meant gaza, and sorry for all the other typos.
lynn, i know what a fan of friedman's you are. this one is just for you
lol
Oh, oh, I see Bassam has switched posts. He must be getting tired of this conversation we are having.
So I'll just try to hit the high points in my response.
I'm glad to see you can see that there are moderate Republicans out there.
Yes, I think that the current GOP has lost it's way because it has forgotten how important those moderate Republicans are to them. And it has forgotten that all in all the country is moderate. I will hope the Democrats are smarter.
Nope, I'm not going to defend the GOP in regard to the current financial mess, but neither am I going to defend the DFL.
I have actually voted in the past for democratic candidates, Annie. Amy Klobuchar is still serving. Tinklenberg was not elected, unfortunately, Bachmann kept her seat. I have also voted for Independents. I voted for Barkley, but again, unfortunately, another candidate was elected. Of course, we are still not sure which candidate. But I know it wasn't the one I voted for. I am not a straight party voter. Whereas, you, Annie, seem to defend to the death anything the Democrats do.
For the abortion issue, I was trying to say that the situation where someone might choose an abortion for reasons of not being able to support a child is not enough of a condition to hold weight with the more conservative anti-abortion people.
what kind of hypocrite challenges another to defend something with his life he would not defend with his vote.
But you did defend it with your vote, Annie. The very fact that you voted did so. The constitution gives the people the right to vote. By doing so, you reinforced its validity. It doesn't matter who you voted for.
would i be supportive of a defense against those who wish to take away my rights as an american? yes.
Excellent.
lynn, i know what a fan of friedman's you are.
Poor guy. He was so out of it he didn't remember what his middle initial was... lol!
lol
Lynn, please feel free to spend as much time as you want on this thread.
b
but neither am I going to defend the DFL.
what's the DFL?
Whereas, you, Annie, seem to defend to the death anything the Democrats do.
oh, you know that is not true. dems were screaming about all sorts of things dem congresscritters agreed to over the last 8 years. many of the anti war crowd never forgave hillary. this is what started the groundswell of support for obama. so no, i definitely don't support all dems and as you know i am especially adverse to aipac, which is woven very tightly into both parties. i think, had the gop elected ron paul as their nominee, you would have seen many many party jumpers. and much of his fiscal policy is downright draconian wrt dem practice.
I was trying to say that the situation where someone might choose an abortion for reasons of not being able to support a child is not enough of a condition
you mean like a couple w/3 kids already who can't afford healthcare and their house is threatened w/foreclosure and one of them can't find work and if they did the childcare bills are already making it so paycheck from the 2nd job barely covers that childcare?
or the teen who (maybe because she was denied sex ed in school due to gop fundie votes) knows she is looking at at least a decade of catch up wrt education, jobs, and basically starting off her entire adult life w/a terrific cross to bear because of her immaturity stupidity or weakness, knowing the guy has already dumped her and in know way will stick around and she will have to depend on welfare which the gop, will try to prevent supporting her, will also try to prevent her from eliminating the need for the welfare and will also try to prevent her from free higher education to pull herself up.
you mean those are not qualified conditions? yeah, i understand the logic, i just don't agree. i also think it is the height of hypocrisy for the party that wants less government (the kind that would try to help that new child and hurting single mom or family) is the party that work put someone in a position to need more government assistance.
in my personal life, i actually 'govern' myself in an independent way more aligned to a republican philosophy. i don't believe it is right to take money from the state. in many ways i think less government is better. but then i am a moral person so my actions and deeds, i try not to impose on others and infringe on others. unfortunately we don't have guarentees others will act so. IOW, when we have companies creating horrible pollution, we have to regulate them or else we all have to suffer the consequences.
there are republicans i have voted for. if a republican is doing a really good job, i will vote for the incumbent (i voted for sam reed as sec of state in wa when i lived there, and i was really glad i did because the next election he handled the gov race which was separated by less than 100 votes, he is fair and unscrupulous). on state issues i often vote for initiatives introduced by the republican party. i don't believe in dumping money into failed projects nor do i believe shoving money at something is always the best way to fix a problem.
IOW, the gop, by taking such a narrow social conservative road really shoots itself in the foot w/voters like me. because in the long run people will make financial compromises before they will allow core issues of personal privacy and rights to be infringed.
when you think about the greatness, in terms of human rights, enshrined in our constitution and bill of rights, it is hard to fathom how one would condone thrashing something so basic as the right of representation at trial, or the right of trial by jury, or to allow a government to spy on you in your own personal space when you aren't infringing on another, or allow a president to act like a dictator without transparency or oversite in a secret matter (and torture my god)..all these things. when you throw all these american ideals/principles out the window for the rights of an unborn child (that is not yours who you do not want to take responsibility for once they are born)...this is too much to expect any red blooded american to sacrifice.
there are so many issues, like matters of defense, that divide americans. but basic american rights and the constitution being thrashed (last night i heard something about bush making war against the constitution) this has threatened the gop to the point of possible extinction. for what? for people like this ?
this person is not smart. this is something a stupid person might not notice. this is why the gop DEPENDS on stupid people to be elected.
another thing. take an issue like privatizing social security. this would be an excellent idea if we didn't have greedy inept conspiring thieves intermingled in our banking system. this isn't 'the republicans' fault, it just is. it is just a fact, call it human nature or whatever. now imagine an entire nation w/older people who have no money because of a bunch of corrupt bankers taking advantage of an 8 year window of deregulation. if you deregulate banks you might end up broke. if you deregulate business you might end up w/oil spills that ruin coast lines for decades and wipe of the income of all the residents of that area for generations. you can't regulate every individual, that is why you have to have these laws. only stupid people don't understand this. but stupid people aren't smart enough to understand the inner workings of the economy. so how do we attract them if we are the gop? we talk about prayer in school. and gay marriage that everyone w/a brain knows doesn't threaten marriage between a man and a woman. it doesn't lead to pedophilia or having sex w/animals or anything like that.
so once the gop can get back to focusing on core fiscal policy (which it can be really good at) and chooses smart people who know a thing or two about the economy (even if he is a mormon or likes to cross dress in his private life or has been divorced a few times, or has a lover on the side) they may have a chance. but i don't see that happening anytime soon.
what kind of hypocrite challenges another to defend something with his life he would not defend with his vote.
But you did defend it with your vote, Annie.
yes, i did. i think you were missing my point. the point i was trying to make was there is a rethug 'theme' that the dems don't 'protect' the country as well as republicans. my point is that 'the counrty' is not the land within our borders, it is the principles we hold dear that make us americans that are enshrined in our constitution. therefore it is hypocritical to challenge someone wrt defending 'the counrty' w/their life' (ie: joining the military) when you won't protect it with your vote (ie voting for a party that has THRASHED the principles that make this country what is is).
bin laden didn't take away habeas corpus, cheney and addington and bearing point and their ilk did, and every person who voted the gop ticket in 04 reinforced that.
saddam hussien didn't make america the nation of torture. afghanistan didn't make my government spy on me.
these core american principles weren't taken away by AQ. and defending america against AQ won't bring them back. this is what i mean about the hypocrisy of those who ask us to defend our country when the people most threatening what makes this country unique, special, and american are not outside this country.
they are right here and they operate out of the republican party. and americans know it. except the stupid ones who don't know any better. or the ones that don't have enough of what i call 'american spirit'. if i were you i would rethink that 'I've done nothing wrong, so I can't say that anyone spying on me would find much of interest'. because that really isn't the point lynn. that is like saying, well i don't intend to break any laws therefore i don't care whether someone accused of a crime gets a trial or not. you may as well just throw the entire constitution out the window.
to protect the constitution with your vote is not a matter of just showing up to voting, it is voting in a way that ensures to protect the constitution.
Poor guy. He was so out of it he didn't remember what his middle initial was... lol!
to be completely transparent, in case you didn't get the 'satire'. friedman didn't write this. it is part of a spook by the yes men.
while you are at that link, i highly recommend checking out
Exxon's Climate-Victim Candles
June, 2007 | Imposters posing as ExxonMobil and National Petroleum Council (NPC) representatives delivered an outrageous keynote speech to 300 oilmen at GO-EXPO, Canada's largest oil conference, held at Stampede Park in Calgary, Alberta, today.
they are really good at what they do. they completely stumped the go expo audience, not a easy feat.
anyway, here is the 'fake' nyt homepage
lyn, check out the advertising for Army Recruiter Goes from Marketing the Military to Marketing Himself (all the ads are impressive)
Bassam, note the attached link to University to Rescue Iraqi Scholars
lynn, speaking of rahm..i know a lot of people have their hopes up he will help Obama facilitate peace in the ME. i know i do. there are however many radical extremeist who see his appointment as a negative thing.
Rahm Emanuel appointment bad news for Israel
Obama's Jewish Chief of Staff Directed Rabin-Arafat Handshake
(IsraelNN.com) Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama's new Jewish Chief of Staff, was active in the Oslo negotiations and choreographed the Rabin-Arafat handshake at the White House for Bill Clinton.
"It was an emotional moment for him," according to public relations consultant Richard Mintz, who worked with Emanuel. "He would like nothing more than to participate in another peace agreement signing." More
I bet he would. Just like he talked Barak into offering Arafat 90% of Israel.
let's just hope the fruitcake crowd doesn't assassinate those brokering peace. i was heartened to hear of emanuel calling American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to apologize for his father's racist remarks.
Annie,
what's the DFL?
DFL.
dems were screaming about all sorts of things dem congresscritters agreed to over the last 8 years.
lol! Yes, that's true, usually it is the Democrats who are always squabbling.
had the gop elected ron paul as their nominee, you would have seen many many party jumpers.
Yup. Right out the windows. :)
or the teen who (maybe because she was denied sex ed in school due to gop fundie votes) knows she is looking at at least a decade of catch up wrt education, jobs,...
Actually, I was thinking of the teen who has had sex with her boyfriend because her parents grew up in the age of free love (otherwise known as the 60's) and didn't think they had to teach her about responsibility and consequences.
Annie, Annie, Annie! I can't believe it! I read through the rest of this first comment and actually agreed with a lot of what you said and didn't get bored once.
but stupid people aren't smart enough to understand the inner workings of the economy. so how do we attract them if we are the gop? we talk about prayer in school. and gay marriage that everyone w/a brain knows doesn't threaten marriage between a man and a woman.
Annie, I think there are a lot of intelligent people out there who haven't a clue as to how the economy really works. Or how deregulation would harm the financial system. Look at Alan Greenspan. It was certainly not at all in his interest to get that wrong. And, no, I don't think there is any deep dark plot by the GOP to harness those less intelligent.
I know someone who is very, very, pro-life. In fact, she is a single issue voter. I would not call her stupid. She has a sincerity and kindness that I can't help but like. During the primaries she supported Huckabee. When I asked her why, she said because she wanted someone in the White House who believed in something greater then himself. Of course she was referring to God, but exchange that for the constitution and she would sound a lot like you, Annie. She's not stupid, and despite the insults we throw at each other, I don't think you are either. Just a little paranoid, maybe. ;)
I think the country always has had a tendency to swing between different ideas. And external forces also have had an effect on those ideas.
You may hate George Bush, but I can't. Because, for whatever reason, he is the only one who actually did something to remove an individual that had so oppressed a country. That doesn't come around very often, and I hope that it will not have been in vain. The area where I fault GB on is the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. It was totally screwed up.
But I think that history will show that despite some poor policies of GB there are things that have occurred that were unavoidable. Things not necessarily having to do with Iraq, I mean.
friedman didn't write this.
Yes, I know, Annie. That's why I made the comment about the middle initial. I was just joking.
i know a lot of people have their hopes up he will help Obama facilitate peace in the ME.
Again, I think peace in the ME has to be desired above all else by those who live there. If it is not, then it doesn't matter what Rahm, or Obama do.
it is the Democrats who are always squabbling.
lol, like herding cats! have you checked out the dem message boards over this 'capitulation' over the lieberman issue. sometimes i just have to laugh they seems so nuts, other times i could pull my hair out. (choose your battles and all that)
Actually, I was thinking of the teen who has had sex with her boyfriend because her parents grew up in the age of free love (otherwise known as the 60's) and didn't think they had to teach her about responsibility and consequences.
as we all know lynn, teenage pregnancy didn't start after the baby boomers started having children. it has more to do with poor people who lack education combined with normal human reproductive cycles starting at a young age or ethnic cultural issues. i believe it was this same baby boomer generation that has promoted sex education in schools and promote birth control education and facilitation. so i don't know if you were snarking but i was part of that generation and very much taught my child about responsibility and consequences and so did my friends. if you check out the demographics and areas of the country with high levels of teen pregnancy i don't think you will find a correlation between the hippie movement and teenage pregnancy, unlike the bible belt.
And, no, I don't think there is any deep dark plot by the GOP to harness those less intelligent.
well, you may want to check out the reasons mcCain chose palin, because it wasn't for her kudos w/the educated. and what kind of person is going to fall for that 'messiah' and 'links to terror' rovian stuff?
Of course she was referring to God, but exchange that for the constitution and she would sound a lot like you, Annie. She's not stupid
that is an interesting comparison but in terms of what it means to be american the 2 don't mesh. people thruout the ages have believed in god and the bible and that isn't what makes our country special. also, the president does not take an oath to follow god, he takes an oath to protect the constitution. that is his job description. so i am not sure how voting for someone on the basis of having god in the white house is patriotic, american, respecting our founders, or...smart. after all, we are not electing someone to lead us thru a spiritual journey. so in this regard i don't think she is like me in the least. frankly, it is rather naive to think supporting someone who does not protect the constitution is in any way protecting america, because we wouldn't be america without what makes us who we are as set out by our founders.
now check this out (ignore the title, this is not about palin per se). are all of these people stupid? no, but they are most definitely a threat to the constitution and the bill of rights. watch the whole thing. the seven mountains ('a template for warfare').
ok, you've heard the rumor about the jews taking over america no doubt. nobody has a problem calling this anti semite. try to imagine the uproar if aipac put out a video like this, with these kinds of sweeping ideas about taking dominion over the souls of people.
this is happening right here in america. you think this isn't a plot? hello! are these people stupid? no. do they host off people who are? most definitely. does the gop host off these people? most definitely. these people are a threat to the very fabric that makes this country great. ("the minority occupying the high places are stronger than a majority that are irrelevant")
get it? they don't believe in democracy. who courts these people? rightwing fanatics, neocons, the gop. do i believe these people will rule? i don't know. but there are a lot of them and without their support, the gop, as it now stands, is nothing...powerless. they know this, this is who they were courting when they chose palin, who was promoted by willian kristol. the weekly standard, and the neocons!
Again, I think peace in the ME has to be desired above all else by those who live there. If it is not, then it doesn't matter what Rahm, or Obama do.
well, this is interesting, because the thing you like best about george is he took out saddam, irregardless of the fact iraqis did not invite this. IOW, it wasn't desired above all else by the people who live there. however, i am not implying we should be intervening militarily in the IS/PAL issue. but i believe we can facilitate peace and i am quite certain there are lots of israelis and palestinians who want peace too. but either way, we should have a policy and stick to it and be willing to sanction those who don't follow the rules. what is the point of having a national position and then hand out billions of dollars to a country who doesn't adhere w/that position.
anyway, i believe it very much does matter what obama does, and that is why he needs allies close to him to help promote those ideals and goals.
Annie, Annie, Annie! I can't believe it! I read through the rest of this first comment and actually agreed with a lot of what you said
;)..great! i think i have mentioned to you before i am a capitalist (w/caveats), maybe it just didn't sink in. i know it is always easier to assume our adversaries are so out in left or right field we tend to assume all attributes apply. i am actually a rather pragmatic person. (!!!!)
;)
'capitulation' over the lieberman issue.
Ah well, one person's capitulation is another person's "letting by gones be by gones".
i was part of that generation and very much taught my child about responsibility and consequences and so did my friends.
Then you are very much to be commended.
It was interesting looking at the teen pregnancy statistics. It seems that since 2000 the rates have been dropping quite a bit. Maybe a correlation with the rise in anti-abortion sentiment? Don't know. California really has a marked change, from high to low. Minnesota seems to have stayed moderate. Texas is still high. DC has lowered it's rates too, and they have always been the highest. I think perhaps some of the higher states might have a correlation with poverty levels as well.
McCain chose Palin to appeal to the base of the Republican party, because they have always been more conservative. Unfortunately, that was campaigning for the last election. In this one, the moderates were the ones he needed to appeal to. Obama chose Biden to appeal to those people who were ambivalent about his experience. And both candidates chose their VP's because they thought they could help them win.
what kind of person is going to fall for that 'messiah'
lol! Kinda hard not to when you see the crowds that Obama draws at times. The only time I've seen that kind of adulation is with teenage girls at rock concerts. Kinda gives one pause when it's heaped on a politician.
the president does not take an oath to follow god, he takes an oath to protect the constitution.
A very good point, Annie, and I agree with you. And to do that the president must protect America.
so i am not sure how voting for someone on the basis of having god in the white house is patriotic,
Many of our former presidents have been religious, and in fact religion has played a large role in our country. To deny that is to deny part of our history. But our founding fathers understood that we must keep a separation of church and state to allow for many different kinds of people (religious or not) to live together in relative peace. And it is the great presidents who can understand that.
My comparison was more in regard to both of you thinking of the president as someone who serves something other than himself. That does not necessarily mean that she wanted someone in the White House to preach to us. Just that she wanted someone that was a little less self serving. For those who are really into religion they equate that with someone who believes in God.
Annie, I will have to look at the video after I post this comment.
who courts these people? rightwing fanatics, neocons, the gop.
Those who court extremists of any sort eventually find themselves out of power in America, whether that be the righteous right or the loony left.
we should have a policy and stick to it and be willing to sanction those who don't follow the rules.
That kind of thinking got us 12 years of sanctions in Iraq that only hurt the people there, not Saddam. Do you really think they didn't hate us for doing that?
because the thing you like best about george is he took out saddam, irregardless of the fact iraqis did not invite this.
That would depend on which Iraqis you are thinking of. I would guess there are quite a few Iraqis who wanted to see Saddam gone. It is just that they would have preferred a better transition period to a different government than what they got.
i know it is always easier to assume our adversaries are so out in left or right field we tend to assume all attributes apply.
I think part of my problem in evaluating where you stand is you tend to rely on sources that I find questionable.
i am actually a rather pragmatic person. (!!!!)
Pleaseed to hear it, Annie. :)
i believe it very much does matter what obama does,
Actually, I do agree. I think Obama, or whoever is president, does have a very important role to play. I don't mean to belittle that. It is just that I also think there are factors within the ME itself that we have little control over. But I will hope for the best, because I do think the Israeli/Palestinian issue is an important part of what is wrong in the ME.
It was interesting looking at the teen pregnancy statistics. It seems that since 2000 the rates have been dropping quite a bit. Maybe a correlation with the rise in anti-abortion sentiment?
you mean as opposed to people who like getting abortions? sorry, bad joke.
as far as i know there is no decline in pro choice, here or elsewhere in the country. more likely there is a correlation in sex education and prevention. this study doesn't say anything about percentages of teens who get abortions. i'm not clear if it even counts teen pregnancies that end.
check this out
scroll to my county (Marin). very very liberal. this is boxer/pelosi country. it is also right in the heart of the 60's hippie movement. this is where the grateful dead live, jefferson starship..janis died here. what are the chances these people are not pro choice? zilch.
this is the lowest teen birthrates in the state. check out san francisco. still low. this has nothing to do w/people not being pro choice. it has to do with education and options.
#
# Information and Education: This program’s goals include decreasing teen and unintended pregnancy through proactive prevention education that helps young men and women of childbearing age to make responsible decisions relevant to sexual and reproductive behavior.
'State law prohibits abstinence only sex education'. children as young as the fifth grade learn about STD's now. that is to make sure they understand very early what kind of health risks are involved w/sex. it is a realistic approach to teen pregnancy and AIDS.
it appears the most liberal states in the nation have the biggest decrease teen birth. in fact, the top ten on the list (pg 4) are all blue states w/the exception of alaska. the worst states are all red. so apparently that 'anti abortion'/pro chastity mentality in those red states hasn't been preventing teen pregnancies.
one person's capitulation is another person's "letting by gones be by gones"
i know, that is why i put capitulation in apostrophe. keep your friend close, and your enemies closer.
McCain chose Palin to appeal to the base of the Republican party, because they have always been more conservative.
that makes no sense at all lyn, because anyone who looks at alaska knows its the most socialist state in the union. and she did nothing to stop that! the only conservative who can't see that is plain ol dumb. in fact it is a known fact red states in general take more fed funds that blue ones.
Kinda hard not to when you see the crowds that Obama draws at times.
it was a poor calculation using the messiah theme to pander to the anti christ contingency.
Kinda gives one pause when it's heaped on a politician.
blame cheney/w for that, not obama. a glass of water looks much more appealing when you've been stranded in a desert for years.
Many of our former presidents have been religious
that still doesn't mean a vote for god in the WH is patriotic, if you can't see that you are missing the point.
That does not necessarily mean that she wanted someone in the White House to preach to us. Just that she wanted someone that was a little less self serving.
i understand that lyn. but what about the job description? i visited free republic to see the reaction to kathleen parker's brouha. it is amazing to me to hear rethugs arguing about what it means to be conservative and why they lost. people mentioned the economy a lot but not one poster mentioned torture. very odd. but i didn't hear them mention it when it was first revealed either...it was almost like they didn't care about habeas corpus either. it's just weird. lots of americans noticed this stuff and were very offended by it. no one on that site even mentioned our civil liberties as a possible reason americans turned against the party, even tho they think of themselves as the moral ones.
Those who court extremists of any sort eventually find themselves out of power in America, whether that be the righteous right or the loony left.
yep, check out the video. freakazoids. i've given an example of the religious right and i think we all know who the neocons and their supporters are. so why don't you treat me to a sample of what you consider the looney left. some big movement comparable to the extremes on the right. just to put them in perspective. and perhaps what politicians in congress they are affiliated with. i am curious which of our dem congress critters you think are looney.
That would depend on which Iraqis you are thinking of.
i was making reference in comparison to your statement here:
peace in the ME has to be desired above all else by those who live there
by your standards for george taking out saddam vs obama attempting to negotiate 2 state solution wrt palestine/israel. one you have a rather large caveat. the other you defend saying some iraqis wanted it. why the 2 standards? we know the majority of isralis are open to dialogue w/hamas. i would imagine most palestinians want to find a way to peace.
That kind of thinking got us 12 years of sanctions in Iraq that only hurt the people there
i would never impose those kinds of draconian sanctions on anyone. but i also wouldn't reward people w/billions of dollars who continue building illegal settlements.
But I will hope for the best, because I do think the Israeli/Palestinian issue is an important part of what is wrong in the ME.
we need to find a way to recognize and celebrate the best in people. the way things stand now, it brings out the worst in everyone. that cannot be the answer. it is unsustainable.
one of the wonderful things about obama, is the civil rights movement was only 40 years ago. i don't think anyone even a decade ago could have ever anticipated something like what just happened. there was a tipping pt, that as i stated earlier, probably would not have come about had it been for the devastation of the last 8 years. and this just reinforces how things we once thought were impossible, aren't. there will be a tipping point for the middle east, this is not sustainable. it does not mean it will happen because one side changes. it happens because changes happen all around. i am very glad you are hoping for the best too.
this is why i don't care about little things like joe lieberman or whatever it is people are alleging about rahm emanuel. for heavens sakes. this is the hand we've been dealt, let's make the best of it.
Since taking office, Governor Schwarzenegger has committed himself to reducing teen births in California and has been a forceful advocate in supporting the following statewide programs aimed at preventing teen pregnancy:
I think this really says it all. You need a leader who will take an active part in dealing with this serious of an issue.
keep your friend close, and your enemies closer.
Or in other words create a "team of rivals". I see Obama has picked Hillary Clinton for his Sec. of State. It will be interesting to see how his picks work together. Hopefully he won't have a "too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" type of scenario.
in fact it is a known fact red states in general take more fed funds that blue ones.
At the moment it appears that 41 states are asking for a fed helping hand. California is leading the pack with a $28 billion hole to fill.
that still doesn't mean a vote for god in the WH is patriotic
I never said it was. Nor did the person I described. And she is a flaming Republican. ;)
so why don't you treat me to a sample of what you consider the looney left.
Code Pink.
Cindy Sheehan
Yes, they are both anti-war, but it is the way they behave that gets them the loony designation.
We can apparently throw in the Northeast Anarchist Network too.
I can understand people's concern with making sure that American's civil liberties are not threatened. But I do not understand any encouragement given to people who mean us harm.
As to far left in Congress, I really am not impressed with Nancy Pelosi. Right before the first bailout bill vote she gave one of the most spiteful speechs I have seen. This did nothing to enhance a spirit of bipartisan unity in a time of crisis. As far as I am concerned she was doing America and Americans a grave disservice by allowing her emotions to sway her words. Very unprofessional.
i would imagine most palestinians want to find a way to peace.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are people that may find peace detrimental to their job security. Until that way of thinking can be changed, peace may be a chimera.
i also wouldn't reward people w/billions of dollars who continue building illegal settlements.
Nor would I. But why were those settlements built? That whole situation is one that feeds on itself.
we need to find a way to recognize and celebrate the best in people.
Certainly. There are many people out there who would like peace and a normal life. It is always those who are greedy for power that spoil it for others.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”
I tend to agree with this.
You need a leader who will take an active part in dealing with this serious of an issue.
yes, one who follows the will of the people. ie: a forceful advocate in supporting the following statewide programs .
re clinton, i wouldn't consider her an enemy of Obama.
keep your friend close, and your enemies closer.
Or in other words create a "team of rivals". I see Obama has picked Hillary Clinton for his Sec. of State.
choosing hilary is getting a 2fer. they had very little distinction in their foreign policy, from what i can tell. they were political rivals for the prez position. hilary is no lieberman. it isn't like she will threaten to jump ship and become a rethug is she doesn't get her way, unlike the lieb.
Hopefully he won't have a "too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" type of scenario.
so far i have seen no indication anyone has an illusion Obama is not at the helm.
in fact it is a known fact red states in general take more fed funds that blue ones.
...California is leading the pack with a $28 billion hole to fill.
yes, well they also lead the pack in terms of how much taxes go towards filling the fed coffer. unlike red states who give less than they take, california pays more and has a huge population so it stands to reason w/it's leading the pack.
another thing to consider is the border states pay billion towards SS and other fed taxes due to the fact they have more workers using fake green cards. the states pick up the tab for these illegal workers while the feds pick up the benefit of those extracted fed taxes.
code pink? you mean these guys. i agree the way they protest is unique, but as far as what they believe and their principles, what about them specifically do you think is looney. being anti war? or is it just their behavior which does absolutely nothing to threaten our constitution.
here is a place you can donate to contribute to the Collateral Repair Project, 'a grassroots movement working with CODEPINK to address the Iraqi Refugee Crisis. CRP offers food, education, job training and other vital services to refugees in Iraq, Jordan and Syria with special projects to support Iraqi fathers in their struggle to support their families.'
as for sheehan, i'd probably be a lot loonier than that if my son was killed in iraq.
here's my idea of looney
In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.
the difference between the loons on the left and right, is one sides behavior is dangerous for our health, the other isn't.
as for the the Northeast Anarchist Network, who represents their interests in congress? in what way do they impact the dem party? what kind of legislation do that back that threatens america economically or socially? in what way can this be compared to the base of the republican party, the neocons, the social conservatives?
i am not seeing any comparable balance in terms of their influence. nor have i ever heard of the Northeast Anarchist Network until your post. i don't see them gathering at obama speeches screaming 'kill mcCain'. IOW, they have no representation in the political process as far as i can see. unlike people like james dobsen. in this regard they do NOT address my request of some big movement comparable to the extremes on the right.
...
But why were those settlements built?
you mean why do people make land grabs? It is always those who are greedy for power that spoil it for others.
since you are quoting teddy roosevelt...
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
yes, one who follows the will of the people.
The key here being first determining what the will of the people is.
they had very little distinction in their foreign policy,
The biggest distinction being that Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, whereas Obama spoke against the war.
yes, well they also lead the pack in terms of how much taxes go towards filling the fed coffer. unlike red states who give less than they take, california pays more and has a huge population so it stands to reason w/it's leading the pack.
California does have the largest population in the nation. Which would correlate with it's larger share of the economic pie. Texas is the next highest in population. I haven't found, what, if any, request Texas has made for bailout funds. Perhaps you know?
Here is a chart of federal spending per dollar received in each state for 2005. And here is a red/blue map of the 2008 election. Scroll down to where they talk about the election by county and look at the map (not the cartogram, the regular map). Look at California and Texas. Interesting, no? It seems a bit of a misnomer to call a state red or blue when in reality we are many shades, including purple. ;)
I think the real difference in who needs money and who doesn't has more to do with managment of a state's budget and the percentage of their population at or near poverty level. California and Texas both have large immigrant, legal or illegal, populations who may require more help. I note that at the moment Minnesota ranks pretty low in receipt of federal funds.
another thing to consider is the border states pay billion towards SS and other fed taxes due to the fact they have more workers using fake green cards.
And what of state taxes? Do these illegal immigrants not pay those as well? But you are right as to the burden placed on state services by these people. And there is also the issue of paying in to the social security program with no guarantee that they will be able to collect on any of those taxes paid, if they don't become citizens. Do we count that as a form of tax they pay for using state services? And what of those who don't use state services because they are afraid of coming to the attention of immigration authorities? What of health care, schooling for children? The immigration issue is an extremely complex one, which is why Washington has not been able to come to some form of agreement on it.
i agree the way they protest is unique,
I have no problem with someone being anti-war. I have no problem with someone protesting. My problem is when they take protesting to a point where they interrupt lawful commerce and the right of others to peacefully assemble. And that in my mind does violate the constitution. They are infringing on other peoples rights then.
As for Cindy Sheehan, she had my sympathy in regard to her sons death. But she doesn't get my sympathy for making a mockery of his death by her actions. He volunteered for military service. And he paid the ultimate price in service to his country. May he rest in peace.
here is a place you can donate...
And here is a place you can donate to help Iraqis with serious injuries receive medical care that they can not receive in Iraq. You may make note that the donation goes to the Smith Gate clinic in Iraq. If you don't want to donate on line, they accept checks as well.
In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
Loony, indeed. I disagree with the Pentagon's decision.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.
If that is the case, then Congress can act to make their intent clearer.
I gotta cut this short, Annie. I'm at work and really have to get something done. I will try to get back later to finish addressing the rest of your comment.
...they do NOT address my request of some big movement comparable to the extremes on the right.
I can't say how big a movement they are. Hopefully they aren't very big. They do seem well organized though.
nor have i ever heard of the Northeast Anarchist Network until your post.
That's a good thing. I hadn't heard about them either until they showed up in Minnesota for the convention.
As to your other questions, you can do research like that yourself if you are that interested.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
I have no problem with this, Annie.
Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else.
Indeed, sometimes I find that certain other people have a problem with this.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving, Annie.
Bassam,
I hope you will be enjoying a nice dinner with friends tomorrow too. :)
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Lynn :)
have a happy thanksgiving everyone!
Bassam, especially i hope you are having a warm thanksgiving w/friends.
lyn, back to address the power (or lack thereof)of the looney left.
lyn, it is not really very effective to link to some site no one has ever heard of and claim they represent some segment of anything w/the ability to impact the political landscape in comparrison to the neocons or the religeous fundies..
as for the protests that day, we already covered them on this site. since the ptb made sure to arrest over 130 journalists and reporters and bloggers including some very established ones i think it is fair to say we don't really have any accurate assessment of what happened that day.
besides, this is not about one day. it is about what the 'far left' or 'looney left' represent.
what exactly is it they are trying to do politically you think is so looney. besides their 'behavior'. of you consider them a threat to the country (like i have given examples of how the radical right threatens our democracy), can you articulate. and as opposed to the radical rtwing, who seem to have many many representatives in congress, who exactly do you think represents these guys and please articulate how dangerous you think these people are. because frankly lyn, in my book 'well organized' is not a website that could very well be run out of the cia. a good indication a group is NOT very powerful is if no one has ever heard of them. unlike say..the types bush let into the ju=stice department from the religious fanatics law school.
so you are just going to sound like you are conjering some boogieman who doesn't exist in any capacity except in your mind, certain ly not in the halls of congress.
you see that's the problem w/the gop. your fanatics rule your party. ours are not for the most part, supported by the party or taken seriously by the party. IOW, our left is rather mainstream. our base in mainstream. our 'loonies' as you call them, arn't figured into the polls even.
and so far you have not named one piece of legislation they are trying to push thru, or one prominent politician the support.
here's what you've got; a compliant media who likes to repeat the lie the gop keeps repeating about 'far left' candidates and issues.
what far left? health care? you call it socialism, card check? you call it communism. gay marriage? could lead to sex w/animals. get it? you got nothin radical to complain about.
so enjoy! and have a happy thanksgiving.
the danger of the looney left
;)
my thankgiving gift to lynn.
As it happens, Annie, I do have a problem with card check. I do not see a reason to support legislation that would do away with someone's right to vote by secret ballot. What, because it would make it easier for employees to unionize? Is that always a good thing? Sure there have been times when a union has helped raise the wages and benefits of employees. There have been other times where they have turned into complete thugs. Not my words, by the way, but someone who belonged to a union. One of the biggest problems with the American big three automakers has been the benefits and wages paid to its union members, including benefits to the retirees. It is not just mismanagement.
As far as I am concerned both sides should have a fair chance to state their case and a secret vote held.
I do not support amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. And never have. As far as I am concerned gay marriage should be left to the states to make legal or no.
Health care is a tough issue. I understand the need for better coverage of the populace as a whole. I am just not sure what plan would work the best. I am not crazy about the socialized medicine you find in Canada or Britain, but neither am I crazy about the hodge podge we have here now. I will leave it up to smarter minds than I to come up with a workable solution.
Part of the problem I have with the people I call the "loony left" is with those who stick their hands in the sand in regards to the issue of terrorism and the wars. They appear to be as clueless as everyone accuses George Bush of being. To have believed that we could have just withdrawn from Iraq before there was some stability, and everything would be all right, was foolish as far as I am concerned. And, frankly, if I am ever in a situation like those unfortunate souls in Mumbai, I would far rather have the United States military standing beside me, than Code Pink. So please spare us the efforts to close down recuiting centers for the Marines. I don't really think that Americans would like a world where they are left without defenses.
Oh, and a compliant media for the GOP? Now there's a laugh. As far as I can tell the media are in general liberal and appear to have a bias towards the left. Except for FOX news of course. ;)
And don't get me started on Hollywood! God! I used to love Boston Legal, despite its tendency to stand on a soap box and preach. But after that episode they aired right before the election which was a thinly veiled Obama campaign commercial I have given up on them. I have had it with the continual spite and political rhetoric from both sides.
Having said all of that I remain hopeful for the future. I have listened to Obama in a couple of interviews and he appears to be making an effort with his picks to be more centrist. And both the Bush adminsitration and Obama's transition team appear to be cooperating in making this a smooth transition. Kudos to both for that, in this difficult time.
Oh, and a compliant media for the GOP? Now there's a laugh. As far as I can tell the media are in general liberal and appear to have a bias towards the left.
maybe truth is biased towards the left. anyway, this assertion keeps getting blathered by the gop. someone has gone to the trouble of linking the 92 nyt articles leading up to the election. bias? whatever.
Annie, I do have a problem with card check. I do not see a reason to support legislation that would do away with someone's right to vote by secret ballot.
that was not my point which you ignored. first of all everyone knows this has nothing to do w/privacy wrt the secret ballot. it has everything to do w/business having the authority to do whatever they want. either way i am not here to defend card check. my best college friend is a superintendent of schools and she said it just cost her over a hundred grand and a file cabinet of documentation collected over a year just to fire an inadequate teacher. i can see both sides of this issue. MY point, is accusing people who simply want a decent wage as 'communist' or looney is disingenuous.
speaking of secret ballots. i seriously doubt obama would be president if it weren't for the caucus system in some states. notice how he won caucus states over and over, and hillary won w/the voting machines?
we all know how much the gop wanted to run against hillary. it's a little hard to fix the vote when you have 3 times as many people on one side of the room as the other, which is what happened @ my caucus. if people want to form a union they should be able to sign up on a list on the wall, just like joining any group.
. One of the biggest problems with the American big three automakers has been the benefits and wages paid to its union members, including benefits to the retirees. It is not just mismanagement.
whine whine whine. playing the blame game. have you checked out all the awesome innovation in their product lately? i didn't think so. mismanagement? you can manage a ford everywhich way from here to anartica, it will still be a ford. when they come up w/a product people want to buy, they will buy it. don't blame the workers.
As far as I am concerned both sides should have a fair chance to state their case w/total transparency and disclosure. if people are too afraid to align w/their bosses so be it.
There have been other times where they have turned into complete thugs.
as opposed to your good buddies who own the corporations who we all know never resort to thuggery. (been following walmart lately lol)
I don't really think that Americans would like a world where they are left without defenses.
lynnie dear, you have to get w/the lingo. preemption isn't defense, its offense. and i think americans and the world would breath a little easier thinking offense was off the table. our world isn't safer than it was 8 years ago, or haven't you noticed.
And don't get me started on Hollywood! God!
remember the good ol days of blackhawk down, pearl harbor, 24,etc etc. what we need is another 60 years of WW2 rewinds. those were the days. i don't think there have been enough holocaust references. those damn terrorist appeasers are running hollywood.
he appears to be making an effort with his picks to be more centrist.
more centrist than what? the republicans base? shocking. obama has never been radical. did you drink the 'most liberal senator' kool aid?
people are hurting lyn. the gop have had 8 years of running the economy into the ground. the masses want a new deal. get ready for lots of rethugs squealing like pigs to slaughter. there is no way out of this mess neatly. no quick fix. we need transparency, oversite and accountability. the free trade guys have been on full throttle, reeling them in is going to cause a rukus.
maybe truth is biased towards the left.
ROTFL!
Isn't that a contradiction in terms, Annie? If one is biased then one doesn't have the ability to see the truth, let alone tell the truth.
MY point, is accusing people who simply want a decent wage as 'communist' or looney is disingenuous.
I have no problem with someone wanting a decent wage. And the hyperbole indulged in by some people on the right can be matched by that exhibited by some people on the left.
if people want to form a union they should be able to sign up on a list on the wall, just like joining any group.
A union isn't just any group. It is one that will affect a work place, the workers, and the business for good or ill. This tends to encourage people on either side (management or the union) to try to influence the vote. A secret ballot allows a worker to make their choice in relative freedom from this.
whine whine whine.
No, Annie, just stating one of the problems with those businesses. I did not say it was the only problem.
...when they come up w/a product people want to buy, they will buy it.
Sure thing. And part of what I look for in a car is the price, the quality, and the safety features. The price being influenced by the operating costs of the business, the quality being influenced by the ability of those who make the product, and the safety features being influenced by the designers of the car.
As far as I am concerned both sides should have a fair chance to state their case w/total transparency and disclosure.
I agree with this.
as opposed to your good buddies who own the corporations who we all know never resort to thuggery.
No, as opposed to a cleanly run organization whose priority is to look after the well being of workers, and which doesn't morph into a self-serving entity.
On the other side, businesses should be held accountable for work place safety, living wages, and in general, decent working conditions. And we do have laws regarding these things. They need to be enforced.
our world isn't safer than it was 8 years ago, or haven't you noticed.
Which would seem to imply that we make sure that we have the tools needed to deal with that.
what we need is another 60 years of WW2 rewinds.
No, what we need is a little less politics in television and a little more simple entertainment. I have no problem with Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives or Two and Half Men. I don't even have a problem with political references, but if I wanted to watch a political commercial, I'd watch one. I have the same problem with a show that tries to preach religion, as well. Touched by An Angel? Blech! There's something called overkill, you know?
obama has never been radical.
Then that will be a good thing, no? Kind of like expecting the worst and getting something not so bad. We shall see.
the gop have had 8 years of running the economy into the ground.
This mess, Annie, took far more than the GOP to create. Please spare me the usual Democractic holier than thou rhetoric. It took both sides of the aisle to screw this up. And it took every single one of us who have spent beyond our means.
the free trade guys have been on full throttle,
I support free trade. Protectionism will not help.
we need transparency, oversite and accountability
Agreed.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms, Annie?
actually it was a little joke. last i heard truth doesn't have an opinion.
now truthiness, that is another story.
only when you fully understand the bias of truthiness to the right, does truth's left leaning tendencies start to make sense.
(leg pulling function operational)
;)
the free trade guys have been on full throttle,
I support free trade. Protectionism will not help.
i wasn't really speaking of protectionism when i mentioned full throttle. i was talking more about deregulating the banks and going bonkos selling loan swaps and stuff.
wrt the auto industry, you may have missed my emphasis. i am actually in a quandry regarding bailing them out. i know the auto industry is a big deal for the country and we need jobs, but watching what happened to the first 300 billion of the other bailout (talk about full throttle) i'm not really in the mood to reward failure.
and the things you mentioned businesses should be held accountable for work place safety, living wages, and in general, decent working conditions....the price, the quality, and the safety features. The price being influenced by the operating costs of the business, the quality being influenced by the ability of those who make the product, and the safety features being influenced by the designers of the car.
you skipped something. accountability. when i said whine whine whine, what i mean is you can't blame the workforce. we've bailed them out before. my ex, who is a mechanic for going on 30 years, he calls these products 'artless engineering'. there is something fundementaly wrong w/making hummers and blaming the workforce. big gas guzzling SUV's and blaming the workforce. they say it was the demand. i say you have to think ahead of the curve. sure there was a demand because the lobbiests got congress to pass 25 thousand dollar tax breaks to businesses that bought these things. so every years they trade one in and bought a new one flooding the streets. and in the life of the car who made that extra 25 thousand? the oil companies for the price of gas.
any good capitalist knows its the product. so do i want to reward this failure? hell no. but i'm leaving this up to DC because it is beyond my expertise and i have no passion for it. (i would prefer spending on some awesome public transportation alternatives to get more cars OFF the road) somehow people have to get back to work and we need a more affordable education system and we need healthcare or we are going to keep faultering as a nation.
these are the things we are giving up for this 'terror' priority. something tells if if we minded our own business a little more (like WHY are we offering to bomb pakistan for india???) we might not need to spend so much pre empting terror. we could pre empt it the same way you pre empt bad health. by simply taking common sense precautions thru education and innovation (and i don't mean new weapons).
ok, that's about it for me. i am really crossing my fingers w/Obama. we have a new shot at a beginning. let's hope brighter minds prevail.
ciao
Post a Comment