HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Ninga » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 47 Next »

Ninga

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 16, 2003, 10:34 AM
Number of posts: 7,821

Journal Archives

Voter apathy has come home to roost.

Voter apathy has given us assaults weapons and now hanger health care.

The soft underbelly of apathetic citizens who can’t be bothered to vote, was exposed in today’s SCOTUS ruling.
Ya get what ya give, and if ya didn’t give a damn, they stepped in and gladly took it.

My thoughts and prayers have shifted focus.

To people who don’t vote….

From Elie Mystal
“All the people who care to stop school shootings already vote for politicians who also care, and all the people who don’t care either vote GOP or don’t vote at all. It’s all baked in. And the people who don’t care have shown that carnage doesn’t change their minds.”

One Hundred Years Women have been fighting for Equal Rights under the Constitution

One Hundred Years Women have been fighting for Equal Rights under the Constitution

It is a stunning truth, a sad truth, a disheartening truth, and a revealing truth that men never or will ever vote for women to be valued as having equal rights under the Constitution…

Truly a “read it and weep”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment


Snip-
Alice Paul toasting (with grape juice) the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, August 26, 1920[16]
On September 25, 1921, the National Woman's Party announced its plans to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to guarantee women equal rights with men. The text of the proposed amendment read:

Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[17]

Alice Paul, the head of the National Women's Party, believed that the Nineteenth Amendment would not be enough to ensure that men and women were treated equally regardless of sex. In 1923, at Seneca Falls, New York, she revised the proposed amendment to read:
Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[16]
Paul named this version the Lucretia Mott Amendment, after a female abolitionist who fought for women's rights and attended the First Women's Rights Convention.[18] The proposal was seconded by Dr. Frances Dickinson, a cousin of Susan B. Anthony.[19]
In 1943, Alice Paul further revised the amendment to reflect the wording of the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. This text became Section 1 of the version passed by Congress in 1972.[20]
As a result, in the 1940s, ERA opponents proposed an alternative, which provided that "no distinctions on the basis of sex shall be made except such as are reasonably justified by differences in physical structure, biological differences, or social function." It was quickly rejected by both pro and anti-ERA coalitions.[21]
-snip-

One Hundred Years Women have been fighting for Equal Rights under the Constitution

It is a stunning truth, a sad truth, a disheartening truth, and a revealing truth that men never or will ever vote for women to be valued as having equal rights under the Constitution…

Truly a “read it and weep”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment


Snip-
Alice Paul toasting (with grape juice) the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, August 26, 1920[16]
On September 25, 1921, the National Woman's Party announced its plans to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to guarantee women equal rights with men. The text of the proposed amendment read:

Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[17]

Alice Paul, the head of the National Women's Party, believed that the Nineteenth Amendment would not be enough to ensure that men and women were treated equally regardless of sex. In 1923, at Seneca Falls, New York, she revised the proposed amendment to read:
Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[16]
Paul named this version the Lucretia Mott Amendment, after a female abolitionist who fought for women's rights and attended the First Women's Rights Convention.[18] The proposal was seconded by Dr. Frances Dickinson, a cousin of Susan B. Anthony.[19]
In 1943, Alice Paul further revised the amendment to reflect the wording of the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. This text became Section 1 of the version passed by Congress in 1972.[20]
As a result, in the 1940s, ERA opponents proposed an alternative, which provided that "no distinctions on the basis of sex shall be made except such as are reasonably justified by differences in physical structure, biological differences, or social function." It was quickly rejected by both pro and anti-ERA coalitions.[21]
-snip-

Any advice will be appreciated.

Mr Ninga disturbed my morning news sip and scroll with his anxious laden diatribe about “why isn’t Fox News prosecuted for lying, they are yelling that there is a fire in the theatre when it’s not the truth!”

My “because it’s not that simple” isn’t working.

How do I answer? My feed has questions from people who are not political junkies.

The Ginnie Thomas thing.
Apparently it’s getting the attention of those who don’t follow news.
They are asking what I think the Democrats will do.
I don’t know what to tell them.

Chairman Durban just say No! To the criminal request

by the GOP regarding releasing the pre sentence reports about Pedophiles.

Manchin: Going forward what do we do with such disclosures? Do we just ignore? Do we move on?


Personally, I will use such information keep a fire burning under my ass and use it to work as hard as possible to GOTV for Tim Ryan’s Senate run here in Ohio.


‘Larry and I will always be together’: Joe Manchin’s closest political ally cashes in on senator’s rise

“During a heated 2015 meeting at a law firm in Clarksburg, W.Va., Larry Puccio insisted that the West Virginia Democratic Party should unify behind billionaire Jim Justice in the race for governor.
When some of the Democratic officials in the room objected — Justice until recently had been a registered Republican — Puccio offered to call the man who for the past three decades has been his friend, business partner, boss, political ally and patron: Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.).”
-snip-





https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/02/14/manchin-puccio-west-virginia/

WaPo hack job on Democrats

Article after article about Biden in the WaPo can be characterized as sophisticated gaslighting. Subtle and nuanced but gaslighting nonetheless. “Here’s this which makes Biden look bad, but we aren’t going to include that which we bypass in order for us to give you conclusions about what in the world this meant in the first place.”

Today
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-decline-first-year/2022/01/18/19ecd8c0-7557-11ec-8ec6-9d61f7afbe17_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-press-conference-rare/2022/01/18/fdda9304-7892-11ec-83e1-eaef0fe4b8c9_story.html


As part of the upcoming televised public Jan 6 hearings, I recommend that McCarthy's

floor speech he gave a week after the attempted coup, be aired as the preface to the hearing. He doesn’t want to testify, then play his damn words.
It should be aired in the beginning of each hearing. Period.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 47 Next »