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


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Oct 2, 2006, 10:23 PM
Number of posts: 2,806

Journal Archives

Here's Obama's ISIL joint resolution. What do you think?

Hey, it repeals the 2002 Iraq war thing Hillary voted for!

And runs out after 3 years!

Chance of passing as is? 0%

To authorize the limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Whereas the terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and various other names (in this resolution referred to as ‘‘ISIL’’) poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;
Whereas ISIL holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so;
Whereas ISIL leaders have stated that they intend to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests;
Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims, regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL’s depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;
Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations;
Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage;
Whereas ISIL is responsible for the deaths of innocent United States citizens, including James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller;
Whereas the United States is working with regional and global allies and partners to degrade and defeat ISIL, to cut off its funding, to stop the flow of foreign fighters to its ranks, and to support local communities as they reject ISIL;
Whereas the announcement of the anti-ISIL Coalition on September 5, 2014, during the NATO Summit in Wales, stated that ISIL poses a serious threat and should be countered by a broad international coalition;
Whereas the United States calls on its allies and partners, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, that have not already done so to join and participate in the anti-ISIL Coalition;
Whereas the United States has taken military action against ISIL in accordance with its inherent right of individual and collective self-defense;
Whereas President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to working with Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force for the anti-ISIL military campaign; and
Whereas President Obama has made clear that in this campaign it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground instead of large-scale deployments of U.S. ground forces: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.
This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.
The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization.
In this joint resolution, the term ‘‘associated persons or forces’’ means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

Hillary Clinton is too old to run for President. There, I said it.



October 26th, 1947 - January 20th, 2017 = 69 years, 86 days

2 presidents started after 66th birthday, one died two months in and the other served his second term while suffering from Alzheimer’s.

Today, class, let’s review past presidential election results and see if that review can shed any light on where the Democratic Party should look when picking its candidate for the 2016 election. My conclusion points to Elizabeth Warren over Hillary Clinton, though there may be a better choice yet somewhere waiting in the wings.

1. In past elections, Democrats have done better (won by a greater percentage of popular vote) when the candidate delineates clear differences from the Republican candidate.

Starting with Cleveland in 1892, we see he actually received fewer votes than his two major opponents, Harrison (R) and Weaver (Populist).
This after essentially tying with Harrison in 1988 and with Blaine in 1984.

The next Democratic Party president, Woodrow Wilson in 1912, was able to beat his main rival, T. Roosevelt, running as a Progressive, with fewer voters than those supporting Roosevelt and Taft (R) combined.

This pattern of the Democrats winning only because the opponents split their votes, benefited Truman and Clinton, who never won the majority of the votes but secured the presidency thanks to Ross Perot’s independent run in both 1992 and 1996.

FDR, positioning himself as significantly populist and different from the Republicans, won every election with more than 6% advantage. (1932 = 18.32%, 1936 = 24.92%, 1940 = 10%, and 1944 = 7.32%).

Kennedy barely won while LBJ, presenting himself as significantly different than Goldwater and benefiting from a Right Wing take over of the Republicans won with a 22.69% difference.

I hate to mention the Gore/Bush 2000 election other than to point out the cries at the time of no difference between the candidates which resulted in a strong showing for the 3rd party Nader. Not to mention the backlash to Clinton’s escapades and the resulting loss of his campaigning support for Gore during the election.

Obama’s 2008 victory by 7.38% was the biggest margin since FDR’s in 1940. The 3.9% margin in 2012 was larger than Carter’s 2.1% even as Carter gained some evangelical votes.

In 2016, the Democrats will do better with a candidate that shows significant differences between his/her policies and the rivals. Clinton, as a female candidate will appear significantly different on that count, but her silence on wall street issues, support of military intervention in foreign affairs, support of “free trade” and perceived membership with the “Powers that Be” puts her at a disadvantage concerning differentiation compared to Elisabeth Warren.

2. Clinton will suffer greatly in the campaign because of her age. She would be second only to Ronald Reagan in age at inauguration having turned 69 in October of 2016. Reagan, by all accounts, served his entire second term with an advancing case of Alzheimer’s disease. The other President inaugurated after an age of 66, Harrison, died less than 2 months into his first term. A review of the other 20th century presidents that started at an age over 60 is very short and yields Truman, Eisenhower, Ford and Bush. I think you will find the press very unkindly covering all of these men’s health issues throughout their terms. I’m not making any claims as to Hillary’s health, but I can sort statistics as well as any insurance actuarial when it comes to human aging metrics.

Every misspoken utterance, stutter and hesitation will be questioned by the press, bringing questions to the public’s mind. That is, assuming anyone who hasn’t already decided thinks they might actually bother to show up and vote between say JEB Bush and Hillary. I’m just two months older than Hillary and I can tell you I’m thinking a lot more about retiring than taking on anything new. The prospect of a presidential run has got to be weighing heavy on Hillary right now and I wouldn’t be surprised if she can’t complete the bid if she actually chooses to make an attempt.

Elisabeth Warren carries little negative baggage with her into 2016. As a female she starts with the same distinction Hillary would benefit from, bringing people out to vote as they won’t want to miss out on voting for the first female president. Warren’s lack of history and past record that the press will cling onto in Clinton’s case is a plus and her strong support of Wall Street reform sets her apart from every other contender save Sanders. Warren is smart to claim no status in the 2016 run, but she will the first people turn to when they see Hillary falter. Other than the usual Hillary supporters, of which I should be counted as a class of 1992, when the polls start showing Bush ahead, primary voters will be searching for an alternative. Warren, Moveon.org and others like me will be ready and waiting.

France to invade Yemen and kill 100,000 in bid to stop future terrorism.

Will the French follow W's lead and do the right thing? We're told Yemen is the new base for our arch enemy, Al-Qaida.

Tune in to Fox News and find out soon.

Or not.

Oklahoma City Pastor shoots 14 year old burglar right before Christmas.


Merry Fucking Christmas!

A little more info about 2 year old shooting mother at Walmart in Idaho.


Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. Veronica typically left her Blackfoot, Idaho, home with her gun nestled at her side. So on Christmas morning last week, her husband gave her a present he hoped would make her life more comfortable: a purse with a special pocket for a concealed weapon.

I just read on the Internets that Global Warming is a Hoax!

Who Knew? $20 billion a year to the scam.


Why is Warren going after Weiss?


This is probably more about whether Warren can find any friends among the Democrats that would indicate the country hasn't completely gone to hell.

Brown fell 153 feet from car, his blood was another 25 feet further.

The guy was shot 175 feet from car. Wilson must have be terrified for his life!

Or did he run after Brown and shoot him down cause Brown Dis'd him.

Climate Change: This Economist article might help you keep up.

Lot of info about what's been done, and how it all worked out.


Who's going to New York City for the Climate Change March?




Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »