HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Poll_Blind » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

Poll_Blind

Profile Information

Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 23,862

About Me

NOTE: Anyone can join Democratic Underground. They can claim anything. Democratic Underground gives no warranty that the people with which you interact on Democratic Underground are Democrats or even Progressives. They may be Republicans, other political agitators or merely the mentally-unstable, heavily intoxicated or deranged personalities whose behavior is best described as "shit-stirring assholes". Furthermore, reading the first two sentences again, realize that their irrational, inflammatory or destructive behavior may appear to be supported by other individuals or even the bulk of respondents to a given post. However, always applying the above paragraph to certain phantasmagoric situations you may witness in given threads in our fora, you are best served by believing only those ideas that you agree with to be real and the rest, highly suspect.

Journal Archives

African Union Opens New Headquarters Funded By China

From Radio Free Europe:
African Union Opens New Headquarters Funded By China
African Union leaders have inaugurated a new $200 million headquarters that was funded by China as a gift.

The Chinese government fully financed the construction of the 20-story tower overlooking a conference center in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa

--snip--

China's top political adviser, Jiao Qinglan, said the gift is a "symbol of deepening relations."

He said China is Africa's largest commercial partner and Chinese investment there amounts to $13 billion.





Hrmm....

PB

A bit of beautiful singing and Harry Anderson performing The Old Shell Game



Ahhh...beautiful.

PB

What if the Iranians start killing scientists?

From Haaretz:
What if the Iranians start killing scientists?
Israel's official response to news of the assassination last week of Iranian nuclear scientist Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan was a deafening silence. The unofficial response was a wink. The day before, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, grinning slightly, spoke about "unnatural events" that were delaying Iran's nuclear program. The Israeli self-congratulation was obvious.

The Israeli public did not question the wisdom of assassinating the Iranian scientists. In Israeli culture, which sanctifies security, such questions are seen as treason. If the hit was successful - the scientist was eliminated and the assassins disappeared - you don't ask questions.

But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted on calling a spade a spade: She categorically denied all U.S. involvement in the latest assassination and even declared that the United States emphatically opposed the assassination of scientists. Her announcement was received with shock and even dismay in Israel. Where is the wisdom in making this kind of public statement, some asked; and in any event, it's hypocritical in light of the fact that President Barack Obama has killed more terrorists using unmanned aerial vehicles than his predecessors.

In order to understand the American criticism of the hits on the scientists, one must ask the questions that Israelis avoid: Do such killings do real damage to Iran's nuclear program? What could be the negative results of the assassination policy? Is it right to create a situation in which scientists (first nuclear scientists and then perhaps scientists in general and senior officials) become pawns in a war of assassinations and counter-assassinations?


In a nutshell: Now that it's started, where does it stop? And is it worth it?

Very good article, IMO.

PB

ATA: TOS-wise, is there a difference between these two quotes?

There isn't an ATA forum anymore so I'll ask this here:

What's the difference in how the Admins view the following examples in regards to the TOS?

"I disagree with Obama and so I will not vote for him"

and...

"You disagree with Obama and so you should not vote for him"

The reason I'm asking is partly because of this thread which, FWIW, managed to garner 74 recommendations. Some people chose to answer with counter-arguments which is what I'd expect. Some chose to answer in an ambiguous manner (i.e. "You shouldn't do anything you don't want to do."), also not particularly unexpected a response given the OP.

And then there were at least seven responses which answered the question of the OP, "Why should I endorse, or vote for, a President who signs this into law?", with the following actual quotes:
Stay home. nt

So don't vote for him, then.

Then don't do those things.

don't. he doesn't need your kind of support anyway.

Don't.

Then Don't Vote For Him- Stay Home or Vote for Someone Else

Stay the fuck home


I alerted on those as TOS violations and every jury allowed the individual comments to stand. But this isn't about juries, because juries don't enforce TOS violations: The Administrators do.

If a person were to explicitly state "I disagree with Obama and so I will not vote for him", I don't imagine they'd last much longer than the post. So, excerpted above are seven examples of "You disagree with Obama and so you should not vote for him" -from the same thread- which were allowed to stand by the Admins, weren't hidden or acted on that I could see.

With at least seven examples in just a single thread I'm wondering what's the difference TOS-wise between those two quotes at the top of my post?

If the response to a "Tell me why I should still support or vote for the President after (whatever)" is met with "Then don't", I don't see that helping DU's mission and it also (explicitly, as I quoted above) promotes people not voting at all on election day- when there are a lot more candidates the Democratic Party has on the ballot than just the President.

Thanks.

PB

“Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush..

...in the war on terror was extinguished today." -Anthony Romero, President of the ACLU, 12/31/11

Full press release HERE.

Of all the things I imagined President Obama would do after taking office, the last thing I would ever have imagined is that he would validate and expand on the Bush administration's unconstitutional policies when it came to the War on Terra™. Should he be reelected in 2012, President Obama has "promised" us his administration will not abuse the authority granted in the NDAA.

Indeed, the hand that signs the bill into law is a part of the same body whose mouth swears us protection from it. Merciful. A greater mercy would have been to veto the bill but Congress might have overruled him so...why bother?

That's the New Pragmatism, isn't it? "Why bother?"

Still, it is a kind of protection. For the moment. But if he loses in 2012 or when a new president is chosen in 2016...what then?



PB
Go to Page: 1