October 5, 2015

Clearly not enough is being done by the public to end gun violence. We, as a society, are all

guilty of using the Second Amendment for our rationalizations not to take actions needed. Changing laws to limit access to guns is the easy step and we aren't even doing that. The real problem is that we've built a society heavily based on authoritarianism. We like the tough guys that beat up the "bad" guys. Our country has for over a century been the biggest bully on the block. Just look at the Viet Nam War and the Iraq War. Our TV and movies are full of shows that feature good guys bullying perceived bad guys. Seems we believe it's a good thing to bully for goodness. Of course we all define goodness as we see fit.

The Second Amendment is merely an Amendment to our Constitution. It is not sacred. It wasn't even part of the original Constitution. It was a change to the Constitution. We need to change the Constitution again to end this madness, if we really want.

September 12, 2015

You are saying that Colin Powell fooled them. While the Germans and French were

telling the world that the intelligence was bogus, they believed Colin Powell about some pipes. Even if Powell was telling the truth, it would have been a very weak reason to justify killing a hundred thousands innocent Iraqi children. The pipes would have meant Iraq was in the process of building a facility to make WMD. Years away. No hurry. All other evidence at the time was debunked.

They trusted the Bush Admin. That is enough to disqualify them for the presidency of the USofA. Were you aware that the spent Uranium shells we used there left uranium dust and is causing cancer at a high rate. The deaths continue from that mistake. How many of our troops are living in our streets with injuries and mental disorders. All because the Bush Admin wanted the oil in Iraq. How many of those that made the decision got rich off the war?

If the excuse was we got bad intelligence, why wasn't the head of the CIA fired? He got the medal of freedom because his intelligence accomplished what was needed by those wanting war, wanting profits for our MIC at the terrible cost of Iraqi lives that some want to sweep under the carpet.

Because Ted Kennedy didn't blame them in public, doesn't mean anything in politics.

It was a mistake that killed maybe a million people and turned 5 million Iraqis into refugees, and some just turn their heads, look the other way and pretend it is inconsequential. Those responsible for the "mistake" need to be held responsible.

September 10, 2015

I listened to her speech. I was counting on her and other Democrats to tell the lying Bush and

Cheney to go to hell. But she didn't do that. She said a bunch of rhetoric that you kindly posted above: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. " Nice words but her vote was just that.
She said, "it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort". She forgot pretty please I guess. She knew full well that she was giving the "awesome responsibility " to a nitwit and mr. Death. Was she fooled? Did George Bush fool her when most sensible people were screaming that it was all lies? No, she knew full well what she was doing. She betrayed her Party, the USofA, our troops, and the people of Iraq, but her friends made hundreds of millions off the war.

We need a change from the status quo that rewards the MIC with wars for profit.

September 9, 2015

If it's so far off the rails then it'd be easy to dispute.

I will be glad to tell you what I think is off the rails. The Princeton Study confirmed that we do not live in a democracy but an oligarchy where the billionaires and their puppets rule. They obviously have turned the complete Republican Party into clowns and have co opted the leadership of the Democratic Party. The DNC is being run by a tyrant. She has blatantly said that she will not answer to the grassroots and will severely limit debates which favors H. Clinton. The Clinton's wealth make them members in good standing of the 1%. H. Clinton has been very friendly to Goldman-Sachs and they love her or Jeb. When asked how she will fix the growing problem of wealth inequality, she tap-danced around the question and said that growing the economy will be the answer. Think about that. Growing the economy for the last 30 years means increasing profits for the corporations and exacerbates wealth inequality. Her solutions for college help is to ask taxpayers to pay the bill NOT THE 1%.

While things get worse and worse every day with regard to jobs, health care, college tuition, wars, environmental damage, NSA/CIA/Google/ATT spying, poverty, etc., she offers eight more years of the establishment status quo and some here are fine with that.

Well while some are in denial about the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the middle east, NSA/CIA spying, a poverty rate of 22% of American children, there are millions coming alive with the thought of real change. Not the bullcrap change that Obama promised then immediately forgot, but real change.

August 31, 2015

The Issues - Where Do You and Your Candidate Stand on Fracking?

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

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


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.


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.


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.


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.



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

August 9, 2015

I appreciate your kind words even if I am not sure how to take the "level-headed" comment.

I have never been accused of that. But I've learned a lot posting in DU and still have a lot to learn about dealing with those here (and in society) that think they can shut down conversations by ridicule and mockery. You see it's easy to be a bully when anonymous. And especially easy if one uses self-righteousness to justify their bully behavior. It is a real challenge to try to hang in and be "level-headed" when being baited into over-reacting.

Sen Sanders isn't our last chance to throw off the chains of tyranny that controls our government. He is just one in many that make up the Populist Movement that has the wealthy Oligarchs and their minions afraid. But we must be non-violent even when faced with the bait to be violent. As we've seen with OWS, the tyrants will be brutal, even to the non-violent. But violence would end what few freedoms we have left.

Conspiracy Theories are given a bad rap by those in control. They want everyone to trust them and not believe those that might not agree. Conspiracies are a part of life especially in government. It's the sole purpose of think tanks and Karl Rove makes a very good living conspiring. Wouldn't you love to know what he is up to now? Those that don't like open discussion are the ones that use the fear of CT to shut down discussions. They want to believe that their emperor has clothes.

August 4, 2015

The first two are pure political rhetoric. "We have a problem and we have to figure out ......."

On banking reform, she says she wants to "figure out" the best way to address it but won't say what that might look like. It could be anything. She didn't commit to tighter regulations because she might not think that's the best way.

About the TPP, "she wants to see rules...." Yes so what. What if you never get those rules? Tell us you would be against it without the rules. And "she is concerned about a provision...." How concerned? Enough to stop supporting it?

On Iran she actually makes a statement. "she supports the agreement". That's what we need. Statements not rhetoric.

How about fracking? I think she supports it but she hasn't made it very clear.

How about the XL Pipeline? Not clear where she stands.

How about domestic spying, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, Drone killing, torture, closing Gitmo, etc. There are a lot of issues she hasn't made very clear.

July 20, 2015

Some think they are solving problems by censoring language. Language isn't the problem.

Censoring language isn't being liberal. Neither is self-righteousness. The subject of word meanings and usage is something we definitely need to discuss on a "politically liberal" message board. But I don't think it's possible here.

July 9, 2015

You make a good point even though I doubt you know it. So why would he give up a high paying

job for a low paying government job? Is it because he is altruistic and really want's to help the American people, or is it that he would use his low paying job to save billions for the wealthy so they can pay him back when the revolving door swings him back to work for them. This is the lowest form of graft. People are dying because they can't eat good food, or find housing or get decent medical attention. Yet you support this corrupt politician that supports the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

This is a class war? Whose side are you on? Holder is on the side of the 1%.

June 22, 2015

Just put them on ignore. They have nothing but ridicule and you won't miss a thing.

The Billionaires have the money to Swiftboat Sen Sanders. It's worth multi-billions to them to keep him out of office. This fake racist issue is just the beginning. Actually the fake dual citizenship attack was the beginning.

Some here justify their support for HRC by claiming that social justice is more important than economic justice, therefore they don't care if HRC favors the Oligarchy economically. Of course they are wrong social justice and economic justice go hand in hand.

Stay and put them on ignore.