HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

yurbud

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 34,442

Journal Archives

Chavez to Obama: I'd vote for you, and you for me

Source: Reuters

"I hope this doesn't harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I'd vote for Obama," the socialist Chavez said of a man he first reached out to in 2009 but to whom he has since generally been insulting.

Chavez is running for a new six-year term against opposition challenger Henrique Capriles, while Obama seeks re-election in November against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Venezuela's election is next weekend.

"Obama is a good guy ... I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighbourhood, he'd vote for Chavez," the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town known for the African roots of its population.

***

He called former U.S. President George W. Bush a "drunk" and the "devil." After an initial overture to Obama came to nothing, he said the new president had disappointed progressives the world over and was the "shame" of Africans.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/chavez-obama-id-vote-173530973.html



There has been a lot of criticism of Chavez here that frankly should be embarrassing to DU, but this time, I think he made a mistake.

Chavez has gotten so much bad press here (unfairly for the most part) that his endorsement of Obama will get a lot more mileage as a stick the right will use to beat Obama than persuading anyone here to vote for him.

Then again, anything that makes the right apoplectic may make them look more unreasonable and unhinged to swing voters, so what the hell.

Is There a Gene for Motherhood?

Source: ABC News

Now, researchers at Rockefeller University say the inclination that both Rory and Saorise feel at such a young age to nurture and feed their baby dolls and play with items like strollers could be something they were born with, and something that will definitely impact their futures.

In a study with mice, the researchers determined that a single gene exists that could be responsible for motivating mothers to protect, feed and raise their young.

The study's findings mean there could be a valid explanation as to why some women seem born to be maternal figures, while others come across as detached or cold or even completely not interested when it comes to children.

Some are calling the discovery the "mommy gene."

Read more: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gene-motherhood-143651678--abc-news-parenting.html



I posted a couple of years ago speculating that the preference to be childless may have a genetic component for some people (of both sexes) much like there's some evidence of a hard-wired component to being gay.

And I got my ass royally chewed.

For some reason, it's acceptable to say your sexual orientation is hard-wired but offensive to say your child-bearing orientation is.

I feel a bit vindicated here.

I'm not going to say whether or not genetics are involved in whether people like country music.

Ironically 47% DO pay for operation of federal government just with a different tax...

Everybody who gets wages or a salary pays Social Security tax, which was doubled in the 80's to accumulate a surplus to prepare for Baby Boomers retirement.

Instead, government did some three card monte and borrowed that surplus to pay for other expenditures, which was absolutely necessary because of cuts to the income tax that mainly helped the very wealthy.

Any talk about "reforming" Social Security is really about welching on that debt.

So the 47% are LOANING money to the federal government, who keeps trying to talk their way out of repaying them.

When the top 1% (really of 1% of 1%, etc) loan the government money, they fully expect to be repaid and they are.

In a way, that means at least half the tax payers are getting screwed, but it's not the half Republicans claim.



PHOTO: Netanyahu passes Baby Bush, descends to Rocky & Bullwinkle level of evidence

I thought nothing could be lamer than the Bush mobile chemical weapons lab drawings as an excuse for a war but Netanyahu did it at the UN, with an illustration that wouldn't be convincing in a Saturday morning cartoon.

This is more likely to insult his audiences intelligence than persuade them of anything.



CONTEXT OF PHOTO

I think he's trying to say that if we do not act now, the moose and squirrel are in existential danger.



Note how accurate his drawing of the bomb is!

Bush deleted no threat of attack from Iraq line from NIE; why believe IRAN is a threat?

Obama seems to be walking a fine line on Iran between placating Israel and not starting a World War. I wish he would just come out and say Iran even with nukes is no threat to us or even to Israel, as the National Intelligence Estimate in 2002 made clear about Iraq in spite of the fear-mongering in the press and from the Bush admin.



Of all the many Bush administration deceptions employed to frighten the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the most important and best-kept secret is the doctoring of the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the "gold standard" report which combined the considered opinion of 16 US intelligence agencies. In the run-up to the invasion, there were two versions of the report: the classified report which the intelligence agencies gave to Bush, and the one that the Bush administration gave to Congress.

***

In the summary section called "Key Judgements" of the classified report which Bush was given, US intelligence said that Saddam Hussein would likely only support terrorist attacks on the US in self-defense, if he felt threatened. The classified National Intelligence Estimate 2002 (NEI 2002) read on page 8:

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge."

http://ralphlopez.hubpages.com/hub/Bush-Deleted-Intel-Report-Passage-Saying-Saddam-Would-Only-Attack-in-Self-Defense

who is a better Obama: Fred Armison or Jay Pharoah?

Fred



Jay



I give the hat tip to Fred for the more dead on imitation, but Jay has a more satirical edge.

Iran, Israel, and Existential Threats

Somebody bothered to ask the president of Iran what the hell he meant by that Israel "wiped off the map" comment a few years back. His answer is in the excerpt below.

It is also worth noting that when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran with chemical weapons, Iran did not respond in kind, and their religious leaders have said nuclear weapons are a sin. They also haven't invaded any countries for over a hundred years, and have a military budget that's a fraction of ours.

The truly ironic thing the author of this article pointed out is that while Obama was telling the Muslim world that we don't kill people over offensive words and images, our government and Israel are contemplating killing a lot of Iranians over that "wiped off the map" comment and the possibility that they MIGHT get nuclear weapons and MIGHT use them on Israel or the United States, and action that would be self-inflicted genocide since Israel has hundreds of nukes and we have thousands, more than enough to wipe Iran off the map and have plenty left over for every other possible enemy.

I don't like many aspects of their religious government, but is not justification to kill thousands or start a war that could escalate to a World War since China and Russia might not look too kindly on our military occupation of the top three oil reserve countries in the world.

There is a lot of scare-mongering here on DU about Iran and I think most people are too smart to fall for it. We need to convince our friends and neighbors too, so politicians might at least think twice before doing this.



EXCERPT:

The Wall Street Journal follows that paragraph with this: "Note that word -- 'eliminated.' When Iranians talk about Israel, this intention of a final solution keeps coming up. In October 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad, quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, said Israel 'must be wiped off the map.' Lest anyone miss the point, the Iranian President said in June 2008 that Israel 'has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.'"

But in fact, when pressed on this, what Ahmadinejad has said is: "Our proposal is for everyone to allow people to freely hold elections and choose their governors. It's been 6 to 7 decades during which the people of Palestine have been dislodged from their homes. And their territories are under occupation, and an occupying regime has been bullying them and forcing them into the current conditions. If such a fate would have come into the lives of ordinary Americans, what proposal would you have had for them? I am sure you would propose for their elimination of international bullying and occupation. Imagine in your mind that the occupation of Palestine has come to an end. What would there remain? So this is the essence of what we are saying."

In other words, were Palestine freed of apartheid and occupation, were all of its people permitted to freely determine their future, that future would not include a government that gives superior status to Jews. Such a future could be horrible, or it could be more democratic and respectful of individual rights than Israel is, or than Iran is, or than the United States is.

****

Talking about the nuclear question, Ahmadinejad told us, has grown tiresome and repetitive. Iran is in compliance with the law and has put the IAEA in charge of inspections. The root cause of U.S. aggression toward Iran, he said, has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Why did the United States back Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran? Because the Iranian people had overthrown a U.S.-backed dictatorship. Why has the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran in the past, he asked, when nuclear enrichment was not an issue? In the past year, he noted, the United States has sold over $70 billion in weapons to nations in the Persian Gulf, while Iran spends less one-fifth that amount. How, he asked, is Iran the aggressor?


http://warisacrime.org/content/iran-israel-and-existential-threats

Why do so many Dem Party leaders support groups who support GOP & destroy lives of Dem voters?

In election season, we at DU are not supposed to advocate for voting for other than Democratic candidates (which makes sense given the name of the site), but when we are asked to give our dollars, time, and votes to Democratic candidates, it's worth asking why many top party leaders support GOP groups and ideas that are harming Democratic voters and all Americans--and those groups give money to Republican candidates.

While I am grateful that Obama has given NCLB waivers and funding to prevent teachers from being fired due to budget cuts, he still supports the conservative education agenda of repetitive standardized testing, replacing real public schools with for profit charter schools that siphon off tax payer money into profits, and the like.

Likewise, he rolls Social Security into deficit reduction talks as if it contributed to the deficit rather than running a surplus for a couple of decades to prepare for the Baby Boomers retirement so the program can still be roughly pay as you go, and the rest of the budget has borrowed that surplus.The only way Social Security contributes to the deficit is if Washington has no intention of paying back what they borrowed from the SS trust fund. Why treat a debt to American workers any less seriously than a debt to an investor, bank, or foreign country?

We need to light a fire under those at the top of the party and let them know they need to put more daylight between themselves and corporate compliant Republicans. The Chicago teacher's strike should have been their wake up call--don't let them hit snooze.

I do not understand how Democrats and progressives put up with self-proclaimed liberals and liberal groups such as Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, StudentsFirst, Stand for Children, and Democrats for Education Reform.

***

I do not understand how Democrats and progressives put up with self-proclaimed liberals and liberal groups such as Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, StudentsFirst, Stand for Children, and Democrats for Education Reform.
(note: links to support at FULL TEXT below).

***

So Campbell Brown wants to help protect students from teachers who are sexual predators and who are protected by unions (just for the record, I believe that is anti-union propaganda). Okay. But what if a teacher has sexual intercourse with a student (which I agree is a fireable if not criminal offense) or if a student is raped by a teacher and then gets pregnant? Campbell Brown's husband (Romney adviser Dan Senor) and Michelle Rhee (who Scott supports) give money to or want to elect some people who belong to the party that would force the targeted/raped student who got pregnant to have the teacher offender's baby.

***
On what planet does it make sense for the DNC and high-profile Democrats, such as Barack Obama, to support these groups and people? How is it that they get to call themselves Democratic allies and liberals when they are actively supporting people who want to destroy the Democratic Party and dis-empower their supporters?

FULL TEXT

TOM TOMORROW TOON: further gaffes from the Romney video



Source http://comics.dailykos.com/

Lincoln trailer: a reminder of what we expected of Obama and what he could still be

Watching this trailer, it's hard not to think of the short-sighted political and moral pygmies Obama has surrounded himself (i.e. Rahm, Arne Duncan, Geithner, and most of his economic advisors) with and compromises he has made in contrast to our hopes after the lowest point of our democracy.

Most politicians are creatures of their times and seem to have no ambition beyond the approval of and compensation from the handful of very wealthy who can put them in office or remove them it (walking on their own two feet or otherwise).

As naive at it may be, I still have a glimmer of hope that Obama is Lincoln, waiting for his Antietam, that will give him the opportunity to change history as profoundly as Lincoln did at that moment.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »