HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » M Kitt » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

M Kitt

Profile Information

Name: Really?
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: So-Cal
Member since: Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:18 AM
Number of posts: 202

About Me

Former military, I enjoy commentary as should be made apparent by my posts ;-)

Journal Archives

Renegade DU site member, Kicked off! Twitter Commentary follows! - See more at: http://www.thomhartm

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/mfkmail7/blog/2016/01/renegade-du-site-member-kicked-twitter-commentary-follows

Soon to follow, what email inquiries were sent to DU site administrators? I'll post them!

Wow, a red bait comment on DU, who'd have thought?

Am I mistaken, were you perhaps being facetious?

Otherwise, thank you ever so much for "enlightening" us.

Senator Sanders is an Outsider, thankfully!

Hillary for VP? Not likely.

She's an "Insider" who has accepted campaign finance money from the large banking and investment interests.

The possibility of bringing Hillary in as VP would have occurred to Mr. Sanders, I'm sure.

The relevant question, I'm thinking, is whether or not he'd need Hillary's support to get those voters. Based on current polling, that's not likely, so I'm guessing he'd not carry her as VP Don't think she'd accept that "Secondary" position, regardless.

And what would an Outsider like Senator Sanders be like in the White House?

As an established outsider, would he maintain that viewpoint, IE "Philosophy", as he's been doing all along up 'til now?

Well, he's already got that "Status", so why not use it in his favor?

I've heard it said that if elected to the White House Bernie could be a "Catalyst", would bring about a landslide of change and sweep both houses causing Dem/Progressive majorities, bring progressive candidates along for the ride.

Possible, right? Is there evidence to support that?

Our current POTUS had that kind of support once in office, but lost it as time played out. Impressive win, historically, and had majorities in both houses at one point BUT lost much of that support 2 years later in the next election cycle.

Why? Public Disappointment, you would think.

He spoke as a Progressive Outsider before the Presidential election, ran on that platform but behaved as a Centrist Dem, or Liberal Republican, perhaps, once elected. We "Disappointed" voters understand that he could have used his Presidential influence much more progressively once in office, but chose not to.

Examples?

So this President COULD HAVE refused to bring Wall Street insiders into his cabinet, he COULD have NOT supported further investment bank bailouts, and COULD have NOT decided that investigations of Political Corruption against the Bush Administration were a bad idea, War Crimes or not.

This President COULD HAVE shown us all that "Too Big to Fail" concerns didn't necessarily apply within our political system, that combined Wall Street and Investment Banking influences didn't control behavior of that administration, that their money wouldn't buy influence within the Obama White House.

That outcome has been quite unfortunate for all of us, since the "Lock-down" of Congress and Senate bills has remained in place ever since we lost the Congressional majority. So Public Programs have been in decay across 2 full Presidential terms in office, all because Constituent Support was lost based on (mistaken?) policies over the last several years.

So as President, would Bernie "Sell Out", once elected?

One of the latest comments on another thread gave Bernie 90 days before he "Sells Out" to some extent or another, but I honestly don't think that would be the case. I think this Senator recognizes what few today seem to, that supporting the "Status Quo" isn't a benefit to a candidate running for office in our current political climate. Wouldn't benefit him in office, either.

Not in terms of "Voter Support", at least. Media airtime can be bought. Voter Support, tho, cannot.

What's the difference?

If you have no message, no resonating Hope and Change! platform of policies that lift you above the other candidates, you may as well have nothing in terms of actual political influence and support.

Because campaign finance alone will not buy the TRUST & INTEGRITY needed as currency for votes, money won't necessarily get you elected in the current campaign environment.

Which seems to be the factor that plays in favor of "Outsiders" like Senator Sanders, these days many of us are fed up with the current political process and results to date, especially over the last few terms.

BUT those with "Insider" money can at least broadcast their message to the public. Like Hillary

So what WILL "Insider" money get you?

Giving in to questionable sources of Campaign money like Super PAC Corporate provided financial support?

Or Koch brothers (Tea Party!) money? That money buys "Media Air Time" as mentioned above. Politically Beneficial coverage on what passes for news these days, that's what money CAN buy.

Just Ask Trump

That is what I attribute the popularity of Mr. Jacka$$ Donald Trump to, he's a Loud Outspoken Outsider who's not supportive of the "Status Quo". He's also a Stupid Bigot obviously, but he's quite Popular.

Regardless of his obvious lack of informed or coherent opinions. Media air time? He's got all that money can buy

And What about Senator Sanders, is he just another Outsider?

Bernie? He's an Outsider who's not either Stupid or a Bigot.

AND he seems to realize that it's to his advantage while running for office to REMAIN an outsider, hence he's not taking money from the usual corruptive influences. Instead, he's getting media attention (and funding) thru Grass Roots support, and limited donations from private donors.

He's also using Social Media feeds to gain support, as President Obama did while running for office (Go ActBlue!).

NO Corporate or Wall Street money like Hillary, NO Super PAC money like the Tea Publican GOP primary insiders.

Because of that, there's another VERY large difference between "The Donald" and Senator Sanders, one that should serve all of us once he's in office. This difference applies to Hillary Clinton, also.

Senator Sanders has ALWAYS been an outsider, and is actually running on that premise. In fact, he's been elected on that platform for his entire political career, and Big Money sources haven't ever purchase an election for him. Hence, he's not a Sock Puppet for any of those Special Interests.

In his case it's actually Integrity that defines him as an outsider, not politics as usual to support an election campaign.

For what it's worth, Thanks.

Agreed, hence this is a "Group" MB

I've posted here several times across the past few years, don't disagree with the premise you've just described. Most replies here have been courteous and valid.

Religious viewpoints are given quite enough attention, written into the fabric of everything in our society from election cycles to National war policy.

Exclusion of those conditions in this "Group" is entirely understandable. Thanks again.

Which Shootings are labeled "Terrorist" related? What's the Religious component of that?

Linked again, but comments can be posted here or on the GD page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027446221

Plus, there are some interesting associated comments here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463272

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463811

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463926

For those who've experienced recent Anti-Islam phobic behavior, and disagree with that behavior.

Again, Thanks.

Sanctimonious Militant TeaHadists Pi$$ me off

Not the post, just a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123048899

Feel free to comment here if you're not a participant in the "Atheists and Agnostics" group.

FYI, I'm an agnostic and while supportive of all religious beliefs, have to confess my opinion that Fundamentalists of any given religion are a blight on our entire Society, and the World in general.

Other flawed Religious Views under Christianity?

Plus, the Calvinist and/or "Dominionist" movements were contrived for very specific purposes, exploitation of resources being the general intent. Human beings are also subject to exploitation under those same conditions, as intended by the founders of those "Movements".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084#post7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084#post9

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084

Thanks.

Interesting comment on the hipocrisy of organized religion.

Praise the lord and pass the bullets, right? And he doesn't even address the contrast of a homeless man, outside a church with so much conspicuous wealth, dressed in the remnants of what used to be a military uniform, an obvious Vet.

Unfortunately, for that church to disregard completely the "New Testament" aspect of their religion is simply a practical adaptation to the rules governing our current society overall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084

From that post:

"Right Wing Fundamentalists assure us that current supporters of Jesus neednít REALLY follow his example, their worldly wealth should NOT be given over to the poor, for instance, since under current Evangelical Fundamentalist standards Excessive Wealth among church members (AND Church Leadership) represents APPROVAL from and by God.

Thus TAXES are (by WingNut logic) an imposition equivalent to giving money to the poor, canít have THAT, can we?"


And since I'm an agnostic, why not throw in a bit of Comment number 7 of that same thread.

ďThe modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Ē
~John Kenneth Galbraith~

But let's not overlook the Conservative Political influence. Think that quote was from 1929 or thereabout, not much has changed in that respect.

Per my opening post many current (IE Right Wing) Fundamentalists seem intent on avoiding New Testament values, they're not inclined to accept recognized values of Compassion or Empathy since that would be in conflict with their inclinations of GREED.

Under tenants of "The Golden Rule" they'd have to accept Liberal/Progressive values "which is NOT going to happen" so they disregard that context completely and justify their "New Improved" values within a new religious framework contrived specifically for that purpose.

As John Galbraith was pointing out, they're simply replacing God with worship of money, tho that's an unspoken imperative of that twisted morality.


War is often driven by the "profit motive" underlying our Society as a whole. As is Religion, for that matter. Thanks.

Those were both worth review, thanks.

You might check out the previous threads, my conversation with Yorktown

Interesting personality, persistent without apparent intention of offending anyone. Not many Militant Anti-Muslims are so polite, in my experience

Wrong, but polite.

Umm, think I'll only address the final statement of that post, per the brief replies you've made

"US was made the main offender VS world peace for a few years"


As the result of GW/Cheney administration's NeoCon war ambitions.

We're at least in complete agreement about that, except for the scale. The United States is still held accountable for those actions within Middle East nation states, NOW, today. Global memory of our actions isn't likely to go away any time soon.

Continuing to generate more of those "Radicalized Fundamentalists" we previously discussed.

And since we still have ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (among other locations), duration of those military involvements has actually been across about 15 years, continues to this day. Not "for a few years" as you remarked above.

Accuracy is important.

No, but again "Conflation" is the driving purpose of that comparison

We can easily tie Christianity to the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany. The Catholic church in Germany, more specifically.

Not to mention involvement of that same church in KKK activities that peaked in the mid 1960s, and related killings connected to lynchings, etc.

But Back to WW2/Hitler

Does that connect Hitler to responsibility for purges associated with the Crusades, or the Inquisitions? Not likely.

Conversely, are Christians accountable for those actions of "final solution" carried out by the Nazis against Jews?

Do these (guilt by association) examples of "Christian" behavior mean that it's a religion of complete violence, prone to Genocide and World War?

More Recently

If you're that intent on conflating muslim activities in Aghanistan or Algeria with current Isil/Daesh threats in Iraq or Syria, why not blame all Christians for the Genocides on both sides of the Boznia/Herzogovina conflicts in 1992? Hundreds of bodies (mass graves) discovered on both sides of that conflict.

So when you roll out numbers like "Half a Million" killed in Algeria, you're not really bringing the historical perspective into it, Christianity has been involved with nearly every major war across the last several hundred years, and often on both sides of those conflicts.

Which is the flaw in the argument of "Global Jihad" against Muslims, they're not historically prone to War/Genocide on the scale of Christianity. Period.

As Stated in my last remark

Speaking of the results of our invasion/occupation of Iraq

Those same hawks are calling for current actions against Iran today, right wing TeaHadists are intentionally conflating Isis with Al Qaida with Iran with Iraq (with the entire Muslim religion of course). For purposes of rationalizing actions against any Middle Eastern nation with a Muslim constituency.

Essentially the Reicht Wing Fundamentalist version of what they'd call "Jihad" if proposed by Muslim religious fanatics.

TeaHadist Fundamentalist Christians are apparently intent on carrying out the same ambitions/agenda they accuse Muslims of.

In support of an "End Times" holy war in the middle east.



Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »