Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 05:51 PM
Number of posts: 9,033
Number of posts: 9,033
A disabled librarian from Tampa, Florida
- 2015 (26)
- 2014 (102)
- 2013 (165)
- 2012 (165)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
this is in response to the follwing thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6424432
and the various ones that also posted on this topic.
Look, if I have to repeat the loyalty oath that I will support whoever the Democrats pick to make sure that whoever the GOP picks does not win, I will. I honestly believe that the nations jails, asylums, and skid rows are full of people that would, at the very least, avoiding doing as much damage to the nation as would a Scott Walker or Jeb Bush. That statement should be a joke, but it is NOT, it is a truth as lieral as two plus two makes four. For the past 30 years, there have been people working to eradicate the reforms of FDR. The fact common sense sems to have shown these programs work is means nothing; look at how many tra party types complain about how they do nto get enough on medicare, yet work to slit everyone else's throat.
As far as the "I vote third party/I do not vote for lesser of two evils,etc, the sad fact is, the person who will win in 2016 will be one party or the GOP. Would I love to see a left wing third party rise and take congress seats and governorships, yes, because that will actually provide a foudnation for taking the executive branch. However, in the meantime, we need to keep the GOP out of the Oval office, period. Nader will be no help, because he is backing Ron Paul this time, the man that would destory every regulatory agency and benefit program there is. Books can and will be written about why Nader chooses to bet on Paul, but that is not my point.
My point is,in the thread I mentioned, and the others that speak obn that topic, the refrain from some Hillary supporters is "She needs the money to win" usually with a remark about "Obama took wall street money too!" However, the point is this, Wall Street, as it is, is planning to do it's buisness the way it always did, which is why we have a crash every so many years. Then, when they do the same things that cause the trouble, they will be there to drink all the water from the trough, and then use it to go right back to making bonuses and bad decisions. Not everyone who thinks that Wall Street needs to stop being rewarded for bad behaviour is your enemy, especially being being a true firend to Hillary will be to say "look, you know that gift they offer is a trojan horse so that a crash will happen, and then they can blame you." We are not asking Hillary to put on a Che Guevara Beret and have Lloyd Blankenfeld stood against the wall, even though the way Lloyd stole money from people ruined many lives, if not ending them by sheer lack of food and medicine.
What we do say is that Wall Street needs to be told that it's current course of behavior is not going to work. We tried lowering regulations like Glass Steagall, and like a bunch of teenagers, you stole the credit card, got drunk, and crashed the car into someone's house. When we hear Hillary be, for whatever reasons,silent, and hear the ultra rich start making Mafiosi level threats against the same Liz Warren that many hillary supporters will tell you is not that powerful, then we have a problem. The fact is, we have to scale back some of the dergulations that, admittedly, Bill Clinton did. Bill is a big boy, he can take it, and frankly he owes Hillary for not running to a divorce lawyer back in the 90's and riding that fame right to Pennsylvania avenue, long before Obama ever left Hawaii. The folks in Wall Street cannot be allowed to issue Fatwas like this. Yes, I use that term, because it is the same sort of edict against an established order that frankly, has become a sort of theocracy in and of itself. It is not about just money, Wall Street has become a de facto religion, making itself the end, the beggining, the means and the end of everything. The finance indistry does not even have to conern itself with the actual making oF goods, it has turned "dervatives" and "credit ratings" into the sort of ill defined, subjective dogma that the fine folks in the Athiest forum would debunk as being based on bad arguments and "woo" or as jeb's dad said "Voodoo economics."
So no, all those angry at wall street do not hate Hillary, not are we all wearing berets. However, I will end this by quoting someone who was a centirst democrat, possibly one of the greatest examples of one, JFK. "those who make peaceful revolt impossible make violent revoultion inevitable." Eventually, if Wall Street does not even tolerate the slightest dissent, people will entertain the sort of people that ARE the real revolutionaries, the ones that want to bomb houses. I sincerely hope that day never comes, because for all the glory of revolution, every revolution turns to 360 degress, meaning sooner or later, the revolution turns it's anger towards the poor and weak. Half the people who speak of revolution here are the sort that would not surivvie the first or second purge; they would join Robespierre and Leon Trotsky in the shallow graves, along with innocent people who did not want to kill or be killed.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Mar 28, 2015, 06:01 AM (5 replies)
translation...he will have his hand out for a handout from Jeb or Marco.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:07 PM (0 replies)
Islamic traditions are filled with stories of mercy and tolerance. But it is not enough to tell these stories in isolation from other dark chapters in Islamic history that feed groups such as Isis. Isis uses these stories, combined with ideas and concepts accepted by the mainstream, as part of an ideology and a political project in the making. Muslim clerics speak in the realm of theory; Isis practises through stories and action.
What the group does is to match its practices with the “practical” history of Islam, even though many rightly view these practices as contradictory to Islamic teachings. The genius of Isis is that it makes people compare between its acts and those of early Muslims, rather than between its practices and the jihad “on paper”.
This is why when you go on the religion forum, you hear the "no true soctosman" fallacy discused. It is not enough tio say that a religion does not allow atrocity, because the actions of it's leaders will be treated as the example to follow, especially if they won for a period of time. It is why, despite all the "heritage, not hate" stuff, we have every right to dislike the confederate flag, because our equivalent to isis, the KKK and Neo-Nazis, will look upon the action of a Nathan Bedford Forrest and say "well they burned black people on a fire, and they were GOOD Christians!"
and lest you think I pulled that example from thin air:
Note the line describing the tactic to "put the skeer on em." That was the tactic used against black people by Mr. Forrest, and by his followers TODAY. No, you cannot just quote where the religions advise not to do evil, you must show example where followers opf that relgion actively STOP atrocities! It goes for Isis and their brtethren in soul, the KKK, as well as the common "Good hearted people" that are inspired by them.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sun Mar 15, 2015, 06:07 PM (7 replies)
Very true...especialyy among GOP
and here is a golden sample:
Feminism is billed, of course, as the antidote to female subjugation. So it’s odd that it’s so often characterised as “man-hating”. What’s more hateful to –and of – men than the idea that they cannot be trusted to even imagine comporting themselves with good sense and dignity unless the women stay hidden away, toiling to create a refuge from the dangerous and exhausting society that men have made? Gender equality is simply about understanding that we can all look after each other in the ways we choose, and respect each other’s choices. Or it would be, anyway, in a better world.
In truth, the subjugation of women makes sense only to those, male or female, who have a fantastically, pitifully low opinion of men. No wonder Islamic fundamentalists “love death”. They must throb with self-loathing and self-disgust during every waking moment of their lives. Those who hate themselves so much must find solace in the existence of another group they can hate even more: the hypocrites of the west.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sun Mar 15, 2015, 05:56 PM (7 replies)
so why are we to blame for it? etc. etc
For them , I offer a little apllication of the golden rule. Let's have Chris Rock blatantly imiate a routine from another multi-millionaire comedian, Jeff Foxworthy.
Now, this joke has made bestselling books, T-shirts, and jeff Foxworthy wealthy, because he, being a self described "redneck" can get away with making fun of rednecks. Now, if comedians like Katt Williams, Chris Rock, or heaven forbid Dave Chapelle did this same, word for word routine, they would get KILLED>
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 04:47 PM (8 replies)
Now, standard disclaimer: Yes, if she is the Democratic Nominee, I WILL, repeat WILL vote for Hillary Clinton. As tempting as the idea of a write in or third-paty portest vote would be, the Election of 2000 proved once and for all that not voting for the lesser of two evils does NOT absolve you if you let a member of the GOP into the Oval Office. As much as Nader loves to say he did not help W. get in to do all the damage, he is wrong, he knows it, and so do the people who got hurt because W. got power he would NOT have gotten.
That being said, I also understand that it is hard to support people who frankly, actively hate you, and work only 20 percent less harder to destroy you then the GOP. Many of us want to believe in some "big tent" however, when the Clintons support people like Alison Grimes, who would not even admit she voted Democrat, yoiu get a feeling that they intend to kick you oput of the big tent when the rain gets in, so that the megabucks donors can have the same Champagne and Cigars Victory party they planned to have in Jeb's tent.
This email scandal, while NOT what the GOP makes of it, is still an example of why many of us, even those who will vote for her, are frustrated. No, it was NOT illegal, but it was the same combination of arrogant, careless and stupid that marked her loss in the 2008 campaign. For her to argue that she was not trying to conceal information is arrogant at best. Yes, the reason we use gov. email is because, yes, your correspondence as Secretary of State is PUBLIC RECORD. There are teenagers and former CEO's that are currently in JAIL because of what they wrote in email, and she knows it. If some teenaged idiot is in jail because their email induced some poor foll to kill themselves, do you think we will not need to know what Hillary wrote about people? And no, I do not mean the overrated Benghazi, a "scandal" so thin that it does nothing but show desperation of the GOP. Here, the very effort to conceal makes her look worse than she actually was, which is unforgivable when she had a frotn row seat to her Husband's self immolation when he looked into the camera and said " I did NOT have SEX with that woman!" only to leave us so dazed we still debate about what the meaning of "is" actually is. Hillary is supposed to be EXPERIENCED so, why does she charge, not walk, into the same damned trap.
The effort to conceal also highlights her weakness as candidate. As young black kids got shot by cops and trigger happy "gun owners", as Keystone tries to dig into the nation, there is nothing but a lot of silence. Frankly, even if we knew with 100 percent certainity that she would NEVER run for officve again, she still would not be allowed to be silent on these matters, because she is one of the strongest voices in our party. The fact that she is likely to run (and already has the bumper stickers and P.A.Cs formed) means she cannot play her cards to her vest. The fact she is slient seems to cater to the worst fears, that she will NOT rach out to the left, adn instead will rely on those wall street and conservative blue dog donors who will shower her with koney on the condition that she run and govern to the right, to govern as what we used to call GOP.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:01 PM (0 replies)
The fact is, rarely, if ever, does a foriegn head of state adress our congress. Even heads of states that are considered great allies do not get a formal chance to address our congress. We are not even going to touch the idea of states we have active enmity with, though heaven knows if he were alive Hugo Chavez would have jumped at the chance.
This is one more attempt to smear Barack Obama as that black man that somehow became president. For all the talk of Imperial Presidencies, this is nothign mroe than the Congress proving that when their masters say jump, they jump. You do not have to omit the various errors Obama made, especially ones where he tried to work with Congress, but no sane person cannot call this what it is, MUTINY.
And sadly, where are many Democrats, slient, because they want the big donor money that thinks they are helping Israel, even though their actions only enable BiBi to drive ISrael off the cliff, and make like harder for those who actually have to live there.
Sadly, where the HELL is Hillary Clinton? Even if she were to say the "I'm not really running yet for President (tee hee)" the former Secretary of State should have something to say about this, but no, she wants the big donor money too.
This day will be remembered as one where MONEY clearly asserted itself as the cart that drives the horse; possibly the worst day for American Democracy since Citizens United legalized bribery.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:52 AM (62 replies)
Would any democrat be stupid enough to pick Rahm Emmanuel as Veep?
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Feb 25, 2015, 11:59 PM (3 replies)
"If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori."
Wilfred Owen wrote this about his fellow soliders in the War that took his life, WWone, that war to end all wars. Sadly, there are always people ready to sell glory to the young, many of whom had nothing to look forward to in their lives thanks to the old men (and occasional old woman) in charge. The IS Imams and Western War-mongers can wrap this in a silk sheet, but the truth is, we live in a world that does not value the young, that seems them as exploitable fodder and pawns, and rewgardless of whatever idelogy is used, the end result is the same, the young kill, the young die, and the old men (and occaional old woman) profit. The onyl diofference is, now they can outwardly recruit young women to throw into the furnace, be they twits like Lyddie England, or these fools in the Burqas.
Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori "It is sweet and fitting to die for the fatherland." An old deadly lie sold to the youth, by old men (and the occasional old woman) who want to be relieved of the responsibility to give these children a life worth living.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Feb 20, 2015, 01:58 PM (0 replies)
Look, I will recite the blood oath: if Hillary WINS THE PRIMARY, I will vote for her, because as awful as a Hillary presidency would be, it would at least keep the Koch brothers and Grover Norquist out of the White House (and we all know THEY are the people whp would run the show.)
However, some of us want a primary because that is the one time in the whole procedure where Hillary HAS to listen to Democrats, including those on the left. If we do not have that period, she is free to do things like hire Larry Summers as part of her campaign. She is free to cater to the right on matters such as the TPP, or bang war drums. The problem with saying "Hilllary is inveitable, get on board already!" is that Hillary can do things that are outright hostile to the left, and have absolutley no reason to even care. I realize that to many (albeit not all )Hillary supporters, that is an amen, as they late the left onlight slightly less than the GOP does, but if you want our help, you need to at the very least offer NOT to take from us what little we have left.
again, I am not a Naderista. 2000 proved once and for all that, rather than help the left, going third party solidfies the right, as many, including blue dog democrats, will make sure the message is "You shoulda gone right." However, THIS IS THE PHASE where Hillary, or ANY candidiate for Democrat, HAS TO LISTEN TO AND WOO those whose votes she wants. You do not get to cut that phase out, she tried in 2008, and she lost.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:44 PM (7 replies)