HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Cal33

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 5,111

Journal Archives

I voted early this year, and noticed that Diebold Voting Machines are still being used - after

so many years!! Luckily I live in a Democratic state. It probably won't
create problems. But what about those states controlled by the
Republicans?

If Democrats choose to play the role of enablers, I am sure the Republicans
are glad of the help! It takes two to tango!

Elizabeth Warren Fights against Global Warming, Separates Herself from Hillary Clinton

More than a month ago Elizabeth Warren finally separated herself clearly from Hillary Clinton, regarding the issue of climate change and global warming. Here is the story: TransCanada Corporation wants to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry oil from Alberta Canada's tar sands to two refineries owned by Koch Industries near the Texas Gulf Coast, for export to Europe; and Hillary Clinton has helped to make that happen, but Elizabeth Warren has now taken the opposite side. Clinton had worked behind the scenes to ease the way for commercial exploitation of this, the world's highest-carbon-emitting oil, 53% of which oil is owned by America's Koch Brothers. Secretary Clinton's State Department allowed the environmental impact statement on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline to be performed by a petroleum industry contractor that was chosen by the company that was proposing to build and own the pipeline, TransCanada. That contractor had no climatologist, and their resulting report failed even at its basic job of estimating the number of degrees by which the Earth's climate would be additionally heated if this pipeline is built and operated. Their report ignored that question, and instead evaluated the impact that climate change would have on the pipeline, which was estimated to be none. President Obama himself is now trying to force the European Union to relax their anti-global-warming regulations so as to permit them to import the Kochs' dirty oil. His agent in this effort is his new U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, from Wall Street.

But on December 20th, Senator Warren signed onto a letter criticizing the Obama Administration's apparent effort to force the European Union to agree to purchase this oil. Six senators and 16 House members, all Democrats, wrote a letter to Froman on Friday asking him to elaborate on his position on the matter. "If these reports are accurate, the U.S. Trade Representative's
actions could undercut the EU's commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors," these
22 Democratic lawmakers wrote. This is, essentially, a rebellion by 22 progressive congressional Democrats against the Clinton-Obama effort to provide a market for the Kochs' dirty oil. This letter was actually written by Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

What is at issue in the Keystone XL and Alberta tar sands matter is governmental policies that will determine whether the tar-sands oil will undercut the production-costs of normal oil. If the Kochs win, then the existing governmental policies will change in ways that will eliminate this cost-advantage of normal oil. The benefits to Koch Industries, from this competitive re-alignment in favor of tar-sands oil, have been estimated to be around $100 billion. David and Charles Koch would then become the two wealthiest individuals in the world.

On December 17th, the Republican House budget chief, Paul Ryan, threatened to drive the U.S. Government into default unless President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline. President Obama holds the sole authority to approve or disapprove this project, because it crosses the international border, but he has delayed this decision for years, because he doesn't want to enrage the environmental community. Senator Warren has now joined with the progressives on two big issues that arouse intense opposition to her from the aristocrats who finance most political campaigns: She opposes the taxpayer-handouts to Wall Street, and she now also opposes the entire planet's, basically, environmental handouts, to the owners of the most-harmfully polluting corporations, such as Koch Industries. (The other owners of tar-sands oil are Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron-Texaco.) This could be a turning-point in Warren's political career. She's no longer at war against only the financial industry corruption that dominates the conservative (Clinton and Obama) establishment within the Democratic Party (and all of the Republican Party), but she is also at war against their environmental corruption. Clinton's extensive Wall Street network is already busy behind the scenes, to discredit if not smear Elizabeth Warren. If Big Oil will now be donating to Wall Street's pro-Hillary campaign against Warren, then Warren will be lucky even to keep her Senate seat.

My admiration for Elizabeth Warren has gone up another notch. She is willing to dare and risk so much for the sake of giving the
American people a better chance. Character assassination does lasting political harm, and it works best against candidates whose policy-prescriptions are the hardest to attack; and every major politician knows that this is so. Hillary Clinton has a huge following that wants to see her as president. How many would still number themselves among her supporters, if they had known of the above? I, myself, would still prefer her to an out-and-out Republican, like Romney. But it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I would like it much better to have a decent, left-of-center Democratic candidate, who would be working for all the American people, not just for the corporations.

We are in desperate need for a change, and time is not on our side. Who knows? The coming 3 years may be our last
chance. Plutocracy is already more than half way replacing democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/elizabeth-warren-comes-do_b_4483753.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Could "The Anti-Christ" possibly be all those sociopaths in high positions in corporations & gov't?

After all, aren't they (banks, insurance, pharmaceutical, and oil companies, plus the
politicians bribed by them) the ones who are bleeding our nation dry and have
caused most of the wars against small foreign countries rich in natural resources?
Aren't they the ones who are leading our nation to hell, but are trying to blame
the Democrats for it at the same time?

Here we go again, another fundamentalist pastor is claiming that Obama is
paving the way for the Anti-Christ:

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary

Why Does Sociopathic Scum Rise To The Top?

This is one of the great articles that causes one to think and raise questions. It is rather long, and
many of the comments that follow it are equally thought-provoking.

I came upon this article while surfing the Internet. Topics covered are: Corporations, government,
society and morality. Even though the topic was written in May, 2013, it has as much relevance
today as it did then.

About Pres. Obama: If he has gone as far to the right as the author alleges, the question that
arises in my mind is, then why are the Right-Wing Congress and news media trying so hard to
destroy him? Could it all be an act? A ploy on the part of the Right-Wing leadership to make
Obama appear less Right-Wing, and, hence, more acceptable to the Left?

http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2013/05/11/why_does_sociopathic_scum_rise_to_the_top

I'd prefer to see Elizabeth Warren as our next president. But if Hillary Clinton

should win in the primaries, I'd of course vote for her. I'd also be hoping that
with Hillary as president, it will not be simply a matter of "more of the same."
Our nation can't take this "more of the same" much longer. We need someone
who is clearly "left of center."

"Right of center" Democratic presidents only help to keep the Right-Wingers
in power longer, and thus prolong the degeneration of our country and the
suffering of the American people.

That's the way the present situation appears to me -- looking at the whole
broad picture. How do other Democrats see it?

Elizabeth Warren's consumer watch-dog forces JP Morgan to pay $329 million refund, and also

imposed a $920 million fine on JP Morgan's London office for a bad trade.

Finally Warren's efforts are bearing fruit -- and big time fruit, indeed!
I hope more of the ill-gotten gains of this and other large banks and
corporations will be paid back to the people who have been cheated
and screwed by these big-time crooks.

More power to the people of America because of her!

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/elizabeth-warren-cfpb-jpmorgan-customer-refund

Obama recently said that if he had been president in the 1980s, he would have been considered a

"moderate Republican." And this from his own lips. I saw it on TV news. So is he, himself,
telling us that he is a moderate Republican?

To the Right-Wingers, of course, this is not enough. To them he is still a "Commie." This shows
how far the whole political scene has shifted to the right in this country. Too many of the leaders
of our nation (both in government and in private industry) are half-crazed fanatics -- fanatics for
their own personal profit, and to hell with everybody else. This is why our whole nation is in the
mess and chaos we are in.

This is what happens when we have too many sickos in positions of power. We are being ruled
by sickos. What else can be expected to happen to our nation but go down-hill? And we have
been going down-hill for a long time.

These mad hats have got to be stopped. There isn't much time left before total disaster strikes.
We've got to win both houses of Congress in 2014, and the presidency in 2016. Fence-sitting
Democratic candidates will not bring about change. The best they can do is to maintain the status
quo, and prolong the agony we're in. In short, all they can provide is more of the same.

For REAL CHANGE we need more Progressive Democrats in office -- people like Warren, Sanders,
Grayson............... And we've got to win in 2014 and 2016.

I 'd like to hear the views of those Democrats who believe that a "middle-of-the-road" approach
might be wiser, and certainly safer.

Elizabeth Warren asks Adj. Gen. Holder, why not investigate the big bankers!

Elizabeth Warren's letter to Adj. Gen. Holder asking him why haven't
the executives of big banks that practiced fraud on the American people
even been investigated.

It's 14 months between now and Nov. 2014. Going at this rate, Sen. Warren
will have fired up enough people to speak up and demand that more
progressive and liberal politicians run for office. I believe there are many
liberals in pink states who don't run because they feel the chances of winning
are too low. Some of them will be encouraged to run, and they will be less
timid about sounding progressive, because more Dems. will want them
to be so.

If anyone can turn things around, Elizabeth can, and will. I wouldn't be too
surprised if Democrats should win both houses of Congress in 2014 !

She sure must be sick and tired of all the timidity among the ranks of our
Democratic politicians!

Go! Warren! Go!

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18154-elizabeth-warren-reads-riot-act-to-holder-for-not-prosecuting-big-bank-mortgage-fraud

Do the English think of themselves as God's blessing to mankind? I ask this question because

recently an American tennis fan congratulated an Englishman when finally a Briton, Andy Murray,
had won the Wimbledon championship for the first time in 75 years! Do you know what the
the Englishman said? His reply was, "Yes ..... but he is not English!" Andy Murray is Scotch. I
suppose the Englishman looked upon him as a "colonial." He and too many Englishmen still have
the mentality of people from the 18th and 19the centuries, still thinking in terms of
"pure Englishmen" and "colonials."

Can you imagine the subtle, not-so-subtle, and blatantly open snubs and put-downs still going on
in the social and business worlds of the UK today? And among "pure Englishmen" themselves,
their society is still being separated by barriers according to class from the blue-blooded nobility to
the city slum dwellers. And today, the situation is complicated by the large numbers of non-white
immigrants from the far-flung countries of their former world-wide empire.

Can you blame the Scots for wanting to secede from the UK?

Let's take a closer look at what a "pure Englishman" is. The first known settlers in England
probably were the Celts. Around 400 BC, the ancient Romans conquered and colonized
"Britannia," as they called that land, and they stayed there for 4 centuries. And Roman armies
were known to have Nubian soldiers. Nubians were black Africans. So, there was already a
mixture of some Italian and a little of black African genes in their ancestry even before the
Christian Era.

The Viking pirates had been raiding the coasts of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales also for
centuries.

In the 5th and 6th Centuries A.D. there was a heavy influx of the Angles and Saxons into
England. These were Germanic tribes, and many of them were fleeing from the Huns (an
Asian tribe) who had conquered much of Germany at that time. The Anglo-Saxons warred
with the Celts, who retreated further west into Wales and Ireland, and north into Scotland.

In 1066 William the Conqueror from Normandy, France, conquered the land and became the
King of England. His descendants (among whom was Richard the Lion-Hearted of the
Crusades fame). The Plantagenets remained for 200 years, and French was the spoken language
at the English Court. And the Normans despised their defeated subjects, the Anglo-Saxons.

The English language we have today is a mixture of Celtic, Latin, Scandinavian, German and
French. There may be others that I have missed.

The "pure Englishman?" Hah! They're deluding themselves. There is no pure anything. There
never was.

I wish the Scotch people good luck, whatever results from their present problems with
the "pure English."

Many Democrats prefer Clinton over Warren for president because the Clinton name is already

well-known. It's true that this will be a great help in winning the election, but I think
more should be looked at than name-recognition alone. We should also consider the
candidates' philosophies of governance. Just read the message in this thread describing
what Warren is like at work in the senate. She doesn't take any nonsense from anyone
and doesn't allow herself to be bullied by anybody. quality !!]. Furthermore, she is anything but shy about standing up for what she wants to
get done for the American people. Right now she is working on (1) Student Loans.
(2) Breaking Up the Big Banks (and here she's got Republican Sen. John McCain, no less,
on her side).

She started off in the Senate seven months ago as a star figure and is more well-known
than many of her senior colleagues who have already served several terms. This is a
delicate situation and will continue to remain so for some time to come, but she seems
to be handling it well thus far. There are more of them who admire and are in awe of
her than those who disapprove. The GOP senators, of course, detest her. Their fear of
her is plainly showing!

For those of us Democrats who think that Hillary Clinton is a far better-known person,
well, it's true at the moment. But there are 3+ years to go before November, 2016, and
Warren, at the rate she is moving, will have accomplished far more in bringing to the
American people's awareness the severe problems that are facing our nation. She will
introduce legislation to correct them, and she will not hesitate to publicize it -- loud and
clear-- when the GOP senators will do their best to block them. She is not shy about
placing blame on where the blame is due. After all, it is the truth. And, like Harry
Truman, she is not afraid of telling the truth.

Like many other Democrats, I think of Hillary Clinton as a middle-of-the-roader. Should
she decide to run and win, we'll be having more of the same as what we've been having
from Obama, so far. Should Clinton win in the primaries, I'd vote for her over any
Republican. However, in the long run I don't think there can be any real change with a
middle-of-the-road philosophy, and win against the Republicans as things now stand.
Just look at Obama. He gives in perhaps 75% and receives 25% whenever he is
bargaining with the GOP. For the health of Democracy in our country, this is like dying
a slow death. It's only a question of time -- unless we change. I hope I am wrong,
but it doesn't look like Obama is going to change suddenly in the 3+ years that are left.

Elizabeth Warren is a Progressive, Liberal DOER. And we need a Progressive, Liberal
DOER right now to shake up the masses of people who simply don't know what's going
on in our country, and in the world at large.

We need NEW BLOOD, and Elizabeth Warren is that NEW BLOOD we have been hoping
and praying for, ever since GW Bush became president in January. 2001.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312397-elizabeth-warren-ruffling-feathers-early-in-clubby-senate
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »