HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WhaTHellsgoingonhere » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 2,899

Journal Archives

Oh man, this is gonna be big! Saw it on Wingnut friend's FB page

OUT...OF....CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!! Unreal!!!!!!

America's Freedom Fighters
BLM Rangers Brought in From Out of State for Nevada Ranch ‘Emergency’!

Armed Rangers were brought in from out of state by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assist in security surrounding the Bundy Ranch, according to the family.
A heated confrontation on Wednesday resulted in Cliven Bundy’s son Ammon being tasered by BLM officials and a 57-year-old protester being shoved to the ground.

Stetsy Bundy Cox, Cliven’s daughter, told the Washington Free Beacon that some of the rangers had Oregon and California license plates.

“You know, some of these guys don’t even know why they’re here,” she said. “A few people have talked to them and they got called in here on an emergency feed and they didn’t know what it was for, it just said they had to be here.”

“They’re almost like a hired gun,” Cox said. “Because what they’re supposed to do is they each have a road, and are told to stay on that road, and they’re supposed to keep people off that road, whatever means possible. That’s their job. They don’t even know how many cows have been gathered.”

The BLM did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Cox said she spoke with an out-of-state Ranger who was ashamed of his job.

“I actually went and talked to one, he was in the back, nobody was even talking to him. He didn’t say much,” she said. “He had a huge big gun on him, but he didn’t really even touch his gun.”

“I asked him, ‘What are you doing? Do you know what you’re doing? You’re stealing an old man’s cattle, his livelihood. He’s a poor man that doesn’t have anything,’” she said. “And I said, ‘You’re pushing baby cows’—I watched a baby cow not want to move and a helicopter swoop down and honk at him till he had to move.”

Cox said the Ranger said, “No, no, we don’t want that.”

“But I saw it,” she said.

“‘Well, well,’ and he goes, ‘I don’t even want to be here. Do you think my grandfather’s proud of me? You think I like this? You think this is fun for me?’”

“Then what are you doing here?” Cox asked him.

“He said, ‘It’s my job.’”

As of Wednesday, 352 cattle have been removed from the public land ranched by the Bundy family for more than a century. An estimated 200 armed officialshave surrounded the ranch, the culmination of a dispute dating 20 years over “grazing fees” and the protection of the “desert tortoise.”

In a statement Wednesday evening, the BLM and the National Park Service said safety “remains the number one priority for the operation.”

“In recent days, some peaceful protests have crossed into illegal activity, including blocking vehicles associated with the gather, impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees,” the agencies said. “These isolated actions that have jeopardized the safety of individuals have been responded to with appropriate law enforcement actions.”

“Today, a BLM truck driven by a non-law enforcement civilian employee assisting with gather operations was struck by a protester on an ATV and the truck’s exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle,” they said. “A police dog was also kicked. Law enforcement officers attempting to protect the civilian federal employee from the attack were also threatened and assaulted. After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed tasers on a protestor.”

The Bundy family posted a statement online that the Wednesday confrontation began after members of the family were taking pictures on an unmarked road of “helicopters running Bundy cattle to death.”

“When we saw the BLM start to surround them we knew they needed our help so we didn’t have a repeat of what happened to Dave Bundy,” they said, referencing their other son’s arrest on Sunday. “We didn’t go there to start a fight we went to stand for our rights, video what was happening and protect those boys and gentlemen.”

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Apr 11, 2014, 11:43 AM (92 replies)

You know, Sarah, the Bill Gates led attack on public education is related..

Bill Gates is leading the way to dismantle public education and replace it with a for profit business plan, one in which he has much to gain financially. "Waiting for Superman" was his pro-charter school propaganda campaign. The entire movie was about Americans not being competitive with the ROW. But the subtext was: Gates is rationalizing why he won't pay American IT workers, engineers, and programmers what they are worth, and in so doing promulgating this phony engineering shortage by convincing America that our education system is broken and that he therefore has no choice but go overseas.

Great thread, thanks for posting it.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Thu Apr 10, 2014, 07:47 PM (1 replies)

Exactly! Talk about playing checkers (GOTV everybody!) vs 3-D chess!

Thank you for this thread!
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 02:59 PM (0 replies)

We need a better strategy than GOTV

Talk about playing checkers (Dems) vs 3-D chess (Rs)!
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 02:52 PM (0 replies)

Where would we be today if Americans didn't let the wealthy ruling class...

scare enough of us, yet again, into believing the Apocalypse would befall us if we didn't do everything they wanted us to do to rescue the banksters and Wall Street. That was 6 years ago, now. I think we'd be on the right track by now.

But, you know Americans, we can't think of alternatives when the uber-wealthy have too much to lose.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:36 PM (0 replies)

2014: Voter Turnout vs Votes Counted

We've got the numbers on our side, they've got the tricks on theirs.
They scheme years in advance, we think GOTV.
We say "count the votes," they lose thousands of votes in key districts.
Trump Card: SCOTUS

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back

1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.

2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall.

3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.

4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.

5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.

6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).

7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars.

8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.

9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.

10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.

11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.

12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.


We need a better strategy than just GOTV.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:18 PM (1 replies)

Interesting point. Seems it's already been put to the test, multiple times...

2000 FL, 2004 OH, and I suspect shenanigans in WI's failed attempt to recall Gov Scott Walker. And that's just in the years ADU.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:59 AM (1 replies)

I'll give AA props for a few things

AA doesn't have psychiatrists performing psych evals and prescribing meds. Today, tens of thousands of AAers are on psych meds. If a friend of a friend's cousin told you that she was at an AA meeting and someone said poo about medication, she can simply go to another meeting.

I'll give AA props for the following:

1. AA accepts everyone from all SES, don't need insurance or a significant bank - good luck getting help if you're poor and uninsured!

2. support group - for many, it's the first time they get to meet and talk to others with same (psych) issues; people discover they are not alone

3. program of action - people who don't take action won't fare well; most people don't want to make changes, so most people don't fare well

4. role models - people with long-time sobriety are role models for newcomers

5. you can find a meeting at all times worldwide when you need support - good luck replicating this with your treatment center...

get ready for the punchline:


Maybe many of you don't travel for work or travel alone, much. It's somewhere to go when you're feeling vulnerable, either because you're lonely or your coworkers are at a bar getting hammered.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Mar 31, 2014, 12:52 PM (0 replies)

You don't even know that HILLARY said that in December at a Goldman Sachs fundraiser???


Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Mar 28, 2014, 05:40 PM (0 replies)

DU was for change, not progressivism...

Once we got a progressive sounding candidate, we were unified. That was a mirage and short lived.

For those of us who were listening carefully (speaking for myself, pre-inauguration), we got steamed because we weren't getting progressivism. I'm sure many people here don't even know what they're talking about when they say, "I'm a progressive." David Sirota does a good job defining the progressive. And once you read description, you will understand why the progressive-minded folks among us are steamed.

"Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class."


The Elizabeth Warren wing is the progressive wing: she's a liberal who wants to take on the current economic infrastructure.

The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives: they support liberal ideas, but have no stomach for institutional change.

So, is it a surprise, or even a bad thing, that DU is having this ideological battle right now????


Below, I merely elaborate on the nature of the internal debate. I'm not going to start another thread because it should be part of the OP.

Q: Would you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

This could be asked another way.

Did you vote for Obama in 2012?

I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers did as me: I voted for Obama in 2012.

Again, I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers will do as me if Hillary is the nominee: I will vote for Hillary.

But that question is totally irrelevant.

That question is irrelevant to this thread and the heated debate that so many DUers are lamenting and don't understand. The debate isn't raging over the Democratic Nominee vs the Republican Nominee.

The debate is: Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?

Many of you are angry because you've put the cart in front of the horse: you've already decided that Hillary IS the Democratic nominee.

The, "Who would you vote for, Romney, Christie, Paul?" question is totally irrelevant. It's only being posed by Hillary backers who are furious that there are Democrats who reject her.

That's what's going on, here.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Mar 28, 2014, 04:04 PM (172 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »