HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 54,140

Journal Archives

Why do the Clinton supporters want Sanders to quit? Are they afraid to continue the race?

Do they fear that Clinton may stumble? Tell us she supports the Reagan's position on AIDs?

We are fighting for the American children, 2,500,000 homeless, 16,000,000 in poverty, 16,000,000 more living in low income homes, as well as the highest infant mortality rate of all modern countries.

We are fighting for the 4,000,000 homeless and 50,000,000 living in poverty.

We are fighting to save our family members from death and being wounded in the neocon's wars for profits.

We are fighting to save SS and Medicare that Wall Street wants to cut.

We are fighting for better health care for all Americans.

We are fighting to save our drinking water from the pollution for oil profits.

We are fighting to reduce the numbers of Americans imprisoned for profits.

We are fighting to spend our tax dollars on infrastructure in lieu of war machines that don't work.

We are fighting the Oligarchy made up of Citibank, Goldman-Sachs, Koch Bros, and all that would allow them to continue to loot the 99% of wealth and resources.

All Democrats should be fighting with us instead of supporting obscene profits for the banksters and Koch Bros.

Even if the Oligarchy steal the election for Clinton we will continue the fight.

Well said. And political correctness and condeming dissent as conspiracy theories

are tools of the "passive and obedient."

Here is someone else that doesn't agree with Joy.

“Far from resisting the emergence of the new caste system, Clinton escalated the drug war beyond what conservatives had imagined possible a decade earlier. As the Justice Policy Institute has observed, “the Clinton Administration’s ‘tough on crime’ policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history.”99 Clinton eventually moved beyond crime and capitulated to the conservative racial agenda on welfare. This move, like his “get tough” rhetoric and policies, was part of a grand strategy articulated by the “new Democrats” to appeal to the elusive white swing voters. In so doing, Clinton—more than any other president—created the current racial undercaste. He signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which “ended welfare as we know it,” replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, as well as a permanent, lifetime ban on eligibility for welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense—including simple possession of marijuana.”
― Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow

Not really.


Here are some important points made by Black Lives Matter Activist Ashley Williams:

“Here's the truth: the Clinton legacy has left our prisons bursting at the seams. Real lives have been destroyed as a result. It is an indisputable fact that millions of Black people were locked up for drug crimes and provided the bodies for the expansion of the prison industry.

The 1994 Crime Bill that she so vigorously defended not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners. The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net.”


“Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.”

So "Mexico" begged to be part of the TPP. So someone polled the workers? Or do you mean

the corrupt government begged to be part. Hell of course. They want the jobs but they won't pay shit.

Plez do some research.

In theory, an improved economy should result in a higher standard of living for its
citizens. However, in Mexico poverty and unemployment have actually increased since
NAFTA was enacted in addition to an increase in illegal aliens crossing from Mexico to
the United States in recent years


One can argue that, this was (and still is) a major flaw within NAFTA and that has been the rapid growth of
Maquiladoras
(Mexican sweatshops) along the border. (From 1994-2000,


In 2004, the Washington post reported that ten years after NAFTA was enacted,
19 million more people were living in poverty than twenty years ago, and nearly one in
four Mexicans were unable to afford adequate food 17.
If one of the provisions of NAFTA was to create new employment opportunities and raise living standards, why has poverty
increased in Mexico?

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/naftas-sociaeconomic-effects-on-mexico.pdf

It's not rocket science. The Big Corporations are not about helping the workers of the world. In fact their charters require them to make as much profits as they can. That puts them in direct conflict with workers trying to make an honest living. If you let the Big Corporations write the "Free" trade agreements, it is abso-fucking-lutly a fact that they will screw the workers in our country and in foreign countries to increase their profits.

Sorry but I have to ask, are you a fan of Ayn Rand?

The rich and powerful don't wish us peons to die, but we have resources they want and if we die as a result of them getting them, it's not personal it's just business.

Those that want to blame Nader for Bush are only looking for a scapegoat because

they don't want to face the disaster that occurred. There were major failings of our system and Nader had nothing to do with any of them. Many of the failures were illegal and yet some are willing to pretend they didn't happen and blame Nader who did nothing illegal. And besides, Nader didn't convince anyone of anything. The Left that was disenfranchised by the Fat Cat Party Elite were looking for someone other than Gore to vote for. Millions of eligible voters stayed home. That wasn't Nader's fault but the hubris of the Dem Party Elite turned off a lot of people. The Florida election process was fraudulent. Thousands of AA were not allowed to vote and our Senate turned their backs. Not Nader's fault. The SCOTUS acted outside their Constitutional powers to give Bush the Presidency. Again not Nader's fault. And Al Gore, like the good little soldier for the Powers That Be, jumped over the net and shook Bush's hand saying, "Good game ole chap. Let's have tea soon." Not Nader's fault.

Some people don't want to deal with the terrible irregularities of the 2000 election so they blame it all on Ralph Nader who told the truth. A truth, like Chomshi is repeating, that both the Republicon Party and the leadership of the Democratic Party answer to the same Powers That Be. That's the truth. Hard to deal with but it's there. Much easier to call them liars and pretend it's all Nader's fault.

The fact that Gore and the Democratic Party Elite didn't care that

the election was stolen shows that they are complicit. It's a game of the Elites and Gore jumped over the net and said "Good job, ole boy." The system is broken badly and yet some so-called Democrats are oblivious. They say they care about those among us that are struggling but can easily rationalize away the reasons we have 50 million Americans living in poverty. They hide behind pragmatism, their excuse to ignore those without health care, or homes, or retirements or jobs. They look the other way as the Ruling Class shots us in the streets and imprisons millions of us.

Where do you stand on fracking? Clinton supports and Sanders is against.

As it becomes more difficult to extract gas from the ground, oil companies are turning more and more to processes like fracking.

Fracking is the injection of a high pressure mixture of water and chemicals into shale to crack the shale to release the trapped gas. (1)

Fracking uses extremely large amounts of fresh water plus a secret mixture of chemicals.

“Fracking requires between two and five million gallons of local freshwater per well - up to 100 times more than traditional extraction methods. “ (1)

While fracking may be beneficial to oil company profits, it's extremely bad for the environment. Water is one of the most important resources we have and fracking is contaminating billions of gallons, rendering it unfit for normal human use.

The chemicals used include carcinogens and toxins like, lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, and over 500 more types. (2)

And what happens to the billions of gallons of contaminated fresh water? Great question.

While oil company profits are rising, peoples around the world are protesting the effect of fracking on their environments.

“PHILADELPHIA -- Demonstrators in the United States and other countries protested Saturday against the natural gas drilling process known as fracking that they say threatens public health and the environment.” (3)

So where do the candidates stand on this process of fracking our environment?

Hillary Clinton is a strong proponent of fracking. While working for the taxpayers as Secretary of State, she used the power of the US of A to convince foreign governments to begin or increase their use of fracking in spite of the protesting peoples in those countries.

“Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans.” (3)

So while peoples in countries around the world are protesting the destruction of their fresh water, Secretary Clinton was using our tax dollars to help Haliburton, Chevron, and other oil giants convince governments to use the environmentally damaging process of fracking.

While some try to say that Clinton and Senator Sanders are close on most issues, the fricking fracking issue shows that they are miles apart.

"I'm very proud that the state of Vermont banned fracking. I hope communities all over California, and all over America do the same."
Senator Bernie Sanders (4)


Oil companies are using the fracking process around the world to increase their profits while destroying the freshwater supplies of the people. And where are they going to dump their billions of gallons of toxic waste water? Probably not in their own backyard.

(1) http://www.cleanwateraction.org/page/fracking-process

(2) http://dangersoffracking.com/

(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/global-protests-fracking-globalfrackdown_n_1905034.html

(4) http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/bernie12.htm

From your name I am guessing you think of yourself as "liberal".

Liberals don't support:

The corruption of Big Money in government via Citizens United.
Job killing "Free Trade" agreements
Fracking for oil company profits over people's water quality.
Unregulated domestic spying and no oversight for the NSA/CIA Security State.
Drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)
Prisons for Profits
American Exceptionalism as an excuse for neocon imperialism.
The use of cluster bombs near civilian areas.

Liberals do support:

Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
Helping college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it).
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
The end of the militarization of our local police forces.
The legalization of marijuana especially for medical use. Denying medical marijuana to those that are suffering is cruel.

The Irony and Hypocracy of Clinton Embracing Citizens United.

Citizens United came about because of an attempt to torpedo H. Clinton. Seems sadly ironic that the CU decision might actually help the Rich and Powerful Oligarchy push her into the WH.

When the SCOTUS made the CU decision, Democrats were united against it. Recognizing the Big Money influence in our government was a bad thing. My how things have changed. Some Democrats have changed their minds and think Big Money influence is ok if it's their candidate that benefits from the Big Money. And to really highlight the hypocrisy, H. Clinton, who has always said she was against CU, turns around and, instead of condemning the process, takes full advantage. And doubling down by stating that she will work to get it over-turned just as soon as she is done with using the process (wink, wink).

Democrats (not DINO's) recognize that Big Money influence in government has destroyed our democracy and the economy of the lower 99%. Somehow the Clinton supporters can rationalize how that's just ok. They can ignore the growing poverty levels and support the greedy profits of the wealthy 1%.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »