HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NYC_SKP » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

NYC_SKP

Profile Information

Name: N/A
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Golden State
Home country: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&f
Current location: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=30906
Member since: Thu May 29, 2008, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 68,233

About Me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593371#post1 [div class=excerpt]http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384291 http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384554 1. It need not be unanimous. But there must be the consensus. I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist. But if some people are just-kinda-meh-not-sure opposed to a lock, then you can assume that consensus exists. But I think the bigger picture is that if everyone is doing the job in good faith and being polite to each other, then it should not be very hard to determine if consensus exists and act accordingly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595617 [/div] ~~~~~~ Hi Jerry!!! :thumbsup:[font color=blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg :thumbsup:[font color = blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg [b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|[font style=\\\"color:#0000ff !important;\\\"]:thumbsup: Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group] http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/warren_2016_bumper_sticker.jpg blue color is color:#0000ff

Journal Archives

You and Hillary against the right to education and healthcare? We have to get that on our own?

And if we elect her she'll help to make that opportunity available to everyone???

Like, get government out of the way? Enable people to lift themselves up by their bootstraps?





OH, man, you'll never live this down on this board.

Hillary vs Bernie re: supporter point of view

Hillary supporter, I was born into this world, I need to help make opportunity available to everyone so that we all have an equal chance at success.

Bernie supporter, I was born into this world I have a right to food shelter clothing education and healthcare. Someone needs to provide it for me.


That's just some sick shit, there.




Bernie! "Our Independent Voice for ___________"

Our independent voice for seniors, workers, children, LGBT, minorities, everyone.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/3193944696/1431732301/1500x500




Bernie Sanders on the issues:

Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record:
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm#Civil_Rights

For people who think GMOs are just about labeling, some video suggestions.

We have the horrible corn lobby.

Horrible Monsanto and more.







"Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising..."

Senator Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising the retirement age.

This can be inferred from her exchange during a debate:

OBAMA: Well, no … because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits, or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people who make less than $97,000 a year — … those are not good policy options.

Senator Clinton responded with more wishy-washy defense of her position. Sounding like an old-time Republican, she gave the old mantra of America’s fiscal class war:

“When it comes to Social Security, fiscal responsibility is the first and more important step. . . . And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.”

She promised not to “impose additional burdens on middle-class families – that is, implicitly defining the middle class as those who earn from $97,000 to $3,000,000,000 per year. This remarkable definition of “middle class” has yet to make it into the sociological textbooks, but I’m sure the University of Chicago will soon make the requisite adjustment.

Senator Obama was quick to respond: “That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax.” He said that she was proposing a “magic solution.” (This was the equivalent of “voodoo economics” of which Pres. Bush I accused Ronald Reagan of practicing.)


In the same exchange, she said:

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year – $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

… I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest it in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

In response, Sen. Clinton say said:

CLINTON: … I don’t want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody.”

MODERATOR: Would you say, ‘No, I’m not going to raise capital gains taxes’?

CLINTON: I wouldn’t raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.


I don't want to call her a Republican, but it sure reads as if a Republican had taken over her brain and made those comments, doesn't it?



http://michael-hudson.com/2008/04/resurrecting-greenspan-hillary-joins-the-vast-rightwing-financial-conspiracy/

"Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary"

Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary

It won’t be for a lack of trying. Elizabeth Warren is reaching right into the Democrat’s heart and soul to take the wind out of Hillary Clinton’s sails. Warren possesses energy and ideas. She knows Democrats’ priorities and if she continues with her messaging it will be transparent to Middle Class Americans that she is their champion. The LA Times is on the story and LA is a great place for Warren to make a statement.
Elizabeth Warren takes the stage in Los Angeles
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

"We don't win what we don't fight for."

You can’t fight for your constituents’ agenda when you are balled up answering why you short-circuited the government email system, why you accepted money directly from dubious foreign sources, why you maintained a conflict of interest with the “foundation,” and how you contributed your part to the Benghazi disaster. There is too much legacy burden to carry, Hillary.


Elizabeth Warren has the energy, creativity, and feisty leadership ability to champion the American Middle Class.

Warren isn’t afraid to differentiate herself from the Obama administration either. She takes him on eye to eye as someone needs too.



More at: http://www.examiner.com/article/elizabeth-warren-can-snatch-the-candidacy-from-hillary

Thank you, Ocatafish, for truthtelling.

eom

"I know she's not perfect to me, but she's all I have." "I'm standing by her."

"I don't want to be alone"

"Maybe she'll change if I prove how much I love her"

"It's not her fault, it's our fault"

"I don't want to live in a world without her"

The preceding comments are indicative of an individual involved in a threatening relationship.


I've seen this sort of dynamic in personal relationships, usually abusive relationships.

The outcome is rarely a good one, and the only reliably successful treatment is cessation of the relationship.

I never had the relationship, so I'm not at risk of abuse.

It is a script, a script of fear, doubt, and uncertainty. They have nothing else, not a thing.

Reasons we must support Hillary and shut the fuck up about all her baggage:

"Nader"

"SCOTUS"

"Koch Brothers"

Now, never mind that Clinton:
-- is mostly funded by big banksters;
-- takes Koch Brothers money;
-- benefits from Citizens United;
-- thinks that corporations are more trustworthy than governments

These, to me, are huge red flags at a minimum, and should really disqualify her from consideration for running as the leader of our party.

Hi, Nadin!


Hillary Clinton on the TPP. It's gonna help women and migrant workers.

Promises, promises...

"Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy"

Cut in at the right moment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=460&v=i7Iq8pyIT84





Full transcript here: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm

Later in the same clip, Secretary Clinton on privatization (doesn't like publicly run enterprises)

And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism: a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors.

Supporters: Are you sure you know your candidate?



You said it, Aerows. The enemies that hurt us most are on Wall Street and other global centers.

And we must judge our candidates by the friends they keep:

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »