HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

Cal33

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,338

Journal Archives

I have been skeptical of Pelosi ever since January, 2007, when she said, "Impeachment

is off the table." Over the years I've sometimes wondered whose side she was on.

This latest episode of putting into the Benghazi Committee a member who had
expressly said that he wasn't interested in it, and deliberately leaving out Grayson,
who has said that he wanted it, and who, many of us think, would do a good job
of making the Republicans look ridiculous and expose their deliberate falsehoods
and lies, has gotten my goat. What better opportunity is there to show up the
Republicans for being the professional liars that they really are?

Hey, DU members! What say you that we write Nancy en masse and express to
her our displeasure at her fearful, gutless and inadequate ways of running the
Democratic House?!?!

Grayson would be the best man on that Benghazi Committee.

Just a feeling of mine: If Dems. should win both Houses of Congress this Nov., Repubs. would

know that their days of open corruption, bribery and vicious methods of
election fraud will be over for a long time to come. And if in 2016 a
Progressive Dem. should be elected president in addition to the above, all
pretense of self-restraint will be dropped by the Pubs. -- they will become
all-out drastic. We ain't seen nothin' yet!

I feel that, one way or another, real change is about to come -- and pretty
soon. We just can't continue in the way we have the past 3 or 4 decades!
It is coming to a head. I just feel it.

Any others feel the same way?

Also Repubs. have nothing to offer the American people. They never did. And they did

rob millions of Americans into the poor-house. So, what else can they do other than make stupid noises?

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

By and large I think what you've said is true. There are exceptions, though. Buddhism (as well

as several other smaller less-well-known religions) has never started any wars in the
name of religion. Nor has Buddhism persecuted anyone when some member broke
off and started a sect. Buddhism did not believe in violence and killing, although
not all of their members were "good Buddhists."

I was also taught a lot of nonsense in school, and did become an agnostic for a long
time. Then I began to question if I wasn't throwing out the baby together with the
bath-water. Stephen Hawking became an atheist. On the other hand, Albert Einstein
had written that, he couldn't think of the existence of such order throughout the
universe without there being some Supreme Intelligence present to guide and sustain it.

Some physicists tried to find out the exact time of the beginning of the universe. They
came to 0.000 many zeroes...01 of a second from the moment of the "Big Bang," but
couldn't reach the Big Bang itself. At that tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang,
the entire universe was the size of an apple! It has been expanding ever since (about
13 billion+ years).

What was there before the Big Bang? And what is our universe still expanding into?
We now have time and space. What was there before the universe began? No time and
no space? And what is our universe still expanding into? Most people already think of
space (without solid particles) as nothing. So what's on the other side of space?



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

Didn't Newt Gomgrich shut down the government some 20 years ago, and the Repubs. lost the House

as a result? These nutjobs don't learn anything from experience, do they?

If they shut down the government again, they might very well lose the House again come 2014.
People get tired of their BS.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »