HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

Cal33

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,420

Journal Archives

How about Nix Son? He was about as crooked and mean as they come.

This is, of course, the most desirable way to get honest elections. But

it's going to take a long, long time to become realized.

In the meantime, there is an easier and faster (temporary) method.
Triple the salaries of the senators and representatives, with the
strict proviso that anyone caught in any corruption practices will, if
proven guilty, have a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years
with no hope of parole. And the court will be made up of a judge
and jury like any other civil court. No members of Congress will
be allowed to take part.

Many people think that our senators and reps. are already being
paid too much. These people don't realize that tripling the salaries
of the members of Congress is peanuts compared to the amount
of money wasted through bribery and corruption (and eventually
must be paid for by the American tax-payer anyway). As far as
money is concerned, doesn't the buck ALWAYS stop with the
tax-payer?

And there are only 500 odd members of Congress. If you keep the
ratio of the money involved in mind, the increase in salary will be less
than peanuts -- especially when corruption of congressmen could
really come to a dead stop. This would be a cheap price to pay for
a really honest and efficient government, which will be really of, for
and by the people.

This is only a temporary measure. By all means, continue to work
towards keeping money out of politics altogether.

I don't think one should vote for someone on the basis of the person's having

worked so hard the last time, and having "the entire republican party plotting against him and his family."

We should vote for a candidate for what s/he stands for politically. Hillary is
a middle of the roader. This means more of the same as Obama. This is
something we can no longer afford. We are already half-way down the
sewer drainage into self-destruct as a democratic nation.

We need a REAL CHANGE. Hillary may call herself a liberal or anything she
wants -- she just isn't. We are in dire need of someone who will really try to turn this nation of ours around 180 degrees.

I believe we are closer to disaster than most people would like to admit. And
we just have no more time to dilly-dally around.

My guess is that most of the Dem. senators are too overly cautious.

However, she does have an ally in Independent Sen. Sanders.

Never have I ever seen a majority Dem. senate so intimidated and cowed
into a paralyzed inertia by the mad antics of a half-crazed Repub. senate.
These latter see that their antics are working, so why should they stop?

Here comes Sen. Warren. She sees the situation the way it is, and she is
calling a spade a spade. She may or may not succeed. I think she will, but
it will take time.

Let's all at least back her with moral support.

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."

I agree with you 100%. There are many who are like Eliz. Warren around. All we have

to do is to look for and advertise for them. In the meantime, there is one Eliz. Warren
here right now, and she is very well known. It would be foolish of us not to at least ask
her to make even better use of herself. The decision, of course, is for her to make. But
there is nothing wrong with asking.

You have brought up an excellent point about Clinton's having played a big role in
causing the degeneration of the quality of American journalism to its present point of
degradation. I never knew this until you pointed it out. Would you mind my writing
another post in which I will quote the last paragraph in your reply #141? I think this
information is too important to let it go to waste. The more people know about it, the
better. And thanks.

Thanks for your intention to work hard to convince Eliz. Warren to run for the presidency. I

will do so, too. In the meantime, here is her email blog: http://elizabethwarren.com/blog

If you should have other blogs where messages to her are sure to be read by her staff,
please let me know. Thanks

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: 1