- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 1, 2008 at 3:38 pm #629096
KayleighMember‘zackly, Charla. I would really like to see Obama stand up for and stand by progressive ideals (protect the earth, help the poor, protect the constitution, etc.) These are GOOD ideals. They are ideals to which we can all point with pride.
They worth more than to be discarded in favor of compromise, pandering, etc.
Call me naive but I didn’t see this coming, not to this degree, anyway.
July 1, 2008 at 4:12 pm #629097
JoBParticipantI can’t tell you how much it pains me to say this…
but there is no last shoe here. The real Obama is now standing up and it doesn’t matter who he is.. he is our candidate.
No Kayeligh, i don’t think he gets it. What he gets is how to win.. and he plays to win.
But… we have to consider the alternatives and remember that it is our congress that makes laws.
And remember that at least this man understands constitutional law and thinks it should stand for something.
there is a progressive arm of the democratic party that Obama wants to take over to help get elected this fall. They have an incredible grass roots structure.
i wish my brain would allow me to tell you their name.. but we need to let this organization know that they need to keep their fingers on their own organizational structure and help Obama win without handing it over..
because we need them to help elect progressive democrats who actually will stand up for progressive values.
I am funneling all of my campaign contributions through them.
He may not be who you thought you were getting, but he is who we got…
There are no other alternatives now.
let’s get him elected.
Then, as Charla would so charmingly put it.. let’s put his feet to the fire.
July 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm #629098
JoBParticipantfeydras…
i too have often chuckled over Godwin’s law…
but that doesn’t change the use of the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” slogan as a rationalization for oppression by most fascist regimes.
After reading Ken, i have to agree that a broader scope is applicable here.. and it is the rationalization used by extreme nationalists… the Nazis included.
July 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm #629099
TrickParticipantKeith Olbermann did an interesting essay last night directly telling Obama not to pander to the FISA legislation.
His point was that either way he votes, the other camp will either cry that he “flip flops” by voting for it, or if he doesn’t vote for it, he’s not tough on terror. Mr Olbermann basically said pick your fights and “give them something to cry about.”
Obama does need to remember why he is where he is today, and it wasn’t from compromising, it was being different than the “politics as usual” and I think there are plenty folks who feel the same.
July 1, 2008 at 4:31 pm #629100
TrickParticipantI won’t even comment or jack this thread on Bush’s press conference on the GI Bill passing saying the Administration and McCain we’re all integral in it’s passing.
July 1, 2008 at 5:05 pm #629101
charlabobParticipantI’m graduated to putting his feet IN the fire :-) But I will wait.
JoB, I think the organization of which you speak is DFA (Democracy for America — formerly Dean for America). It’s now run by Howard Dean’s brother, Jim Dean.
Given the email I’ve been getting, I suspect the hijacking has begun. I’m actually more concerned that MoveOn gave up it’s 527 — in deference to Obama. I haven’t had time to figureo ut what that means but I’m, as always, wary.
The FISA update, as written, has nothing at all to do with being safe from terrorism. NOTHING! My concern is that Obama has given up any notion of educating people — he’s becoming a leader who follows.
July 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm #629102
JoBParticipantTrick…
it’s consistent.. why would Bush bother with the truth when he can invent anything he wants?
If nothing else we have to elect a democrat so that kind of self promotion doesn’t end up in our history books…
and thanks for alerting me to Oberman. that restored some faith for me…
We’ve been rolling over too long.
July 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm #629103
charlabobParticipantOlbermann actually flipflopped on his advice to Obama — last week he was *kind of* defending the move to the center, including FISA. He got a huge amount of crap for it (including from the charla and the bob and, probably more interesting to him, from Rachel Maddow.) In this case, I approve of the flip.
July 1, 2008 at 5:23 pm #629104
JoBParticipantcharlabob..
good for you!
I will have to ask hubby which organization.. but i am not sue that was it. their spokesperson.. and i thought their head is the actress who played Dharma’s mom on Dharma and Greg..
i have to ask anyway as we are sending them money:)
ok.. the brain is worn down today.. i am not sleeping well:( I think i need to go soak my head:)
July 1, 2008 at 5:29 pm #629105
KenParticipantEYE on the prize. Or more importantly the alternative to the prize.
The supreme court.
One more right wing president and we can kiss any progress goodbye for two generations if not more.
I am old enough to take whatever comes but I will not condemn my children and grandchildren to the resulting imperial corporatocracy the conservatives have been reaching for since the FDR administration, without a fight.
Obama has a much better chance of getting in front of, and marching with, a progressive parade if one comes along.
McCain would just turn loose the dogs and the fire-hoses if not the national guard.
July 1, 2008 at 5:34 pm #629106
charlabobParticipantYou’re right, Ken — we just have to multitask — make sure Obama gets elected and, simultaneously, generate the progressive parade that he can get in front of on November 5.
July 1, 2008 at 5:34 pm #629107
feydrasMemberCharlabob – minor point to quibble…
I’m not LDS but i’m pretty sure that Mormons consider themselves Christian.
July 1, 2008 at 5:36 pm #629108
KenParticipantThe bill is a result of close collaboration between my administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill. … I want to thank members who worked hard for the GI Bill expansion, especially Senators Webb and Warner, Graham, Burr, McCain. This bill shows that even in an election year, Democrats and Republicans can come together to stand behind our troops
Bush the contortionist taking credit for what he and McCain and Graham fought bitterly against.
July 1, 2008 at 5:42 pm #629109
KenParticipantfeydras is right. It is pretty much everyone else that does not, including all fundamentalist.
If you find the biblical tales of prehistory hard to swallow, the LDS myths read like a how to book on profiting from the gullibility of mankind.
And Scientology is the pinnical of obvious hucksterism masquerading as religion.
July 1, 2008 at 5:54 pm #629110
AnonymousInactiveI am wondering, charla, where you are basing your belief that the way the update is written has absolutely “NOTHING” to do with keeping us safe from terrorism? Could you direct me to where I would find that?
Also, Feydras is correct that Mormons DO consider themselves Christians. Although I am not Mormon either, I was married to one.
And I just want to say, again, in my candidate’s defence, that obtaining occupancy in Iraq is not the same as carrying on the war. The US maintains occupancy in Korea and we are not currently at “war” with them. Same with Germany, same with Japan….
July 1, 2008 at 5:55 pm #629111
AnonymousInactiveGuam, Italy, Philippines….
July 1, 2008 at 6:24 pm #629112
AnonymousInactiveIt is correct that McCain was referring to setting up permanent bases. Not actually being at war for 100 years as people keep enjoy saying. The problem with that, is, was that the plan all along? The Iraqis claim Bush wants 58 permanent bases and the right to decide what is considered hostile action against them. Does this sound like preparation for an Iran war to anyone else?
July 1, 2008 at 7:20 pm #629113
AnonymousInactiveJT – You state what the Iraqis claim…. what does our Government claim?
July 1, 2008 at 7:23 pm #629114
AnonymousInactiveYou’re suggesting we can go by that?
July 1, 2008 at 7:27 pm #629115
AnonymousInactiveNo. No suggestion at all. But I believe that you were actually suggesting we go by what the Iraqis are “claiming”.
Asking an honest question here because I’m pretty sure you are a lot better at research than I am, what IS our Government saying? What is our stance and reason for remaining there?
July 1, 2008 at 7:40 pm #629116
AnonymousInactiveThat’s not an answerable question. Our government has refused to disclose what they are negotiating. Or that we even were negotiating continued occupation, for that matter. Much to the dismay of congress I might add. They weren’t too happy with being kept out of the loop either. It was the Iraqi government that made this exchange public.
July 1, 2008 at 10:16 pm #629117
AnonymousInactiveSee, I knew you were a better researcher than I am.
What I don’t understand (and I’m sure someone will help me out with this), why is it so horrible that we maintain an occupancy there?
As I stated above, we have done it before without any backlash.
July 1, 2008 at 11:41 pm #629118
JoBParticipantNewResident…
the places you name where we have maintained troops weren’t so opposed to having us there…not the case in Afghanistan… or in Iraq…
in the case of Germany and Japan we dumped very big dollars into their infastructure.. which was demolished during the war.
In contrast, Iraq’s infastructure has been demolished by a war we started to “free” them and the only zone that has benefited much from American dollars is the American zone.. which now has an embassy i am told you can see from space in a country that is living without basic services.
big differences.
July 2, 2008 at 12:06 am #629119
AnonymousInactiveI would definitely never claim to be good with history, so bear with me.
So, we are not in these other countries as a result of war? Which, then they would not have initially wanted us there either, I would think.
Did these other countries invite us to come there and set up shop?
Also, are you suggesting that the US took money thats purpose was to help improve Iraq and used it for our own good? I would like more information on that idea, if you have the time or inclination to provide it.
July 2, 2008 at 2:09 am #629120
KenParticipantgoogle SOFA and you can see this:
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/06/29/leaked-arabic-version-sofa-agreement/
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=146157&bolum=109
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143674
The word occupancy implies occupation which is not the same as the agreements we have negotiated for bases all over the world. We pay for those and they are negotiated between sovereign powers (except for Cuba, we just stole that).
Even the Dems are not interested in removing all presence or even all troops. If we keep a force similar per capita to the other countries with bases, followed the local laws, and stopped setting up forward fire bases, I am pretty sure very few in congress would object.
This is 58 military bases and a continuing occupation force Bush is attempting to “negotiate”, and threatening to withhold 50 billion in Iraqi assets from the government unless they sign before the November election.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.