HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Autumn » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 18,977

Journal Archives

OMG The queen Latifah show. Everyone needs to see these three girls


My jaw dropped to the dloor. Simply amazing young women. It gives me hope.


you have to sit through a sponser ad but my God it's worth it. Powerful.

72 percent of Americans disapprove of GOP in Congress: Poll


"Seventy-two percent of Americans disapprove of Republican members in Congress with 47 percent saying they “strongly” hate the political party, according to a recent poll.

The poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News said 61 percent of respondents are also unhappy with the Democratic party and 54 percent are dissatisfied with President Barack Obama.

Americans’ approval of Republicans has been abysmal for the past years, and that people around the world disliked Congress as a whole."

I found the last paragraph reassuring.

"According to the poll, 60 percent of Democrats approve of their party's members in Congress, while only 30 percent of Republicans have the same idea."

Elizabeth Warren Book Is A Liberal Call To Arms That Rips Tea Party 'Magical Thinking'


WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Warren's new book isn't just a memoir -- it's a full-throated endorsement of modern, populist liberalism and a scathing indictment of anti-government "magical thinking" by the tea party.

While the Democratic Massachusetts senator structures her new volume, A Fighting Chance, as a chronological tale of her life, she also uses her experiences to make strategic points and arguments about her political philosophy, which embraces government and the labor movement as forces for good.

"We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that if 'big government' disappears, so will society's toughest problems. That's just magical thinking -- and it's also dangerous thinking," Warren writes. "Our problems are getting bigger by the day and we need to develop some hardheaded, realistic responses. Instead of trying to starve the government or drown it in the bathtub, we need to tackle our problems head-on, and that will require better government."

No more NSA spying? Sorry, Mr Obama, but that's not true


Last week in the Hague, Barack Obama seemed to have suddenly remembered the oath he swore on his inauguration as president – that stuff about preserving, protecting and defending the constitution of the United States. At any rate, he announced that the NSA would end the "bulk collection" of telephone records and instead would be required to seek a new kind of court order to search data held by telecommunications companies.

This policy change is a tacit admission of what Edward Snowden (and 2001 whistleblower William Binney before him) had been claiming, namely that the warrantless surveillance of US citizens by the NSA and other government agencies does, in fact, violate the constitution of the United States. Obama's announcement looked to some observers as the first crack to appear in the implacable facade of the national surveillance state. This looked promising because, as we know from second world war movies, the first crack is inevitably the harbinger of the eventual total collapse of the dam.

Dream on. The significant thing about Obama's announcement is the two things it left out: surveillance of the internet (as distinct from the telephonic activity of American citizens); and of the rest of the world – that's you and me. So even if Obama succeeds in getting his little policy swerve through Congress, the central capabilities of the national surveillance state will remain in place, untouched and unimpaired.

At the heart of these capabilities is the "bulk collection" (that is, warrantless) collection and storage of communications metadata on an unimaginable scale. Given that metadata in this context is essentially a log of every communicative act that you make in cyberspace – where you went; who you emailed or texted; who emailed or texted you; the URL of every website you visited; a list of every web search you've ever made; and so on – metadata nowadays constitutes information of a very detailed and intimate nature

Play your game, it's as obvious as the London Bridge

Don't talk about integrity, you have none or you would at least have the courage of your convictions to demand Will Pitt apologize instead of hiding behind little weasel words. You are as transparent as glass and your ego is even more fragile.

If you unfairly, wrongly and very publicly attack someone, shouldn't you apologize?

For example, if on Tuesday I wrongly blamed another person for a situation I was in, and I called that person a piece of shit, I would apologize after learning I was wrong. That is the right thing to do, it seems, especially if one wants to be taken seriously in the future...?

Did Alex Sink run on austerity and cutting SS in Florida?

I haven't paid any attention to that race but if Daily Kos is right I could see why the turnout for her would be low.

"And in this case, I don't blame our base voters. When Democrats like Alex Sink run on austerity, cutting Social Security and bringing back the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Commission, well, no one is inspired." Snippet from this article:


Edited to add this from madfloridian which answered my question.


I hate these obscene disgusting, vile white men

in this repuke debate with the white hot heat of a thousands suns. Listening to them discussing birth control and their fucking objections to it is just disgusting They are the most despicable, disgusting bunch of losers that have ever existed.

I have been critical of Obamacare and I just want to apologize and say

Thank you President Obama and I will try to never to criticize it again. Anything that pisses off Bachman that much has got to be good. Listening to her made me realize that the repeal of Obamacare is her only reason for living.
Go to Page: 1