HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

freshwest

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 53,661

Journal Archives

The link says it was signed in... 2005! More mess for a Democrat to clean up.

Looks like Obama has been trying to fine tune the thing. But it was a done deal before he got into office. Like NAFTA was for Clinton. It's a treaty, we don't abrogate them. It's his thankless job to enforce them.



I've always had some Isolationist tendencies and from what you posted on American history, I feel ignorant. Simplicity is something we crave, but it's just a place to let the mind rest, and we aren't gonna get it.

Sad to say, this may go either way! Another story:

“To get the gold, they will have to kill every one of us”

The most-storied warrior tribe in Ecuador prepares to fight as the government sells gold-laden land to China

Alexander Zaitchik - Feb 10, 2013



There are so many pictures at this link about the crime being done to the Earth there, and the people there. The president of the country has sold them out to China and Canada.

I don't know what will happen in Patagaonia. The Salon link has no updates so I don't know. This is such an important area and these people need help. The government is going full steam ahead and not listening to the native people there.

These people don't need the gold, world industries want the gold for profit and products. The story goes into past deceptions and the current arrogance. I hope the river down in Patagonia is saved, but not hopeful.

The biosphere is being taken down by those who claim to be smart, but really aren't. The native people are always 'the canary in the coal mine' as we were taught by the OCAW, until Reagan's cultural revolution changed the minds of people about unions, dealing in bigotry as this story at Salon explains being used there.

Social justice is important because it divides the people, rewarding some while devastating others. Please go to the link to see the full story, it's an eye opener and heartbreaking.

I couldn't decide what part needed to be posted as it was all valuable to how the 'first world' is devastating the 'third world'. (Not sure those terms mean anything anymore):

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/to_get_the_gold_they_will_have_to_kill_every_one_of_us/

Except SCOTUS was who allowed this. True, Congress didn't stop it, but the Kochstitution demands it:




Thought you looked familiar:



Perfeck! But why ken we no haz numbers with teh DU magic? No kapital letterz, but:

^U ^H^A^Z ^S^K^I^L^L^Z

Rile 'em up:



Take that!

He has voted on CR's that contained things he didn't like, typically Democratic. See here:

F-35 fighter planes OK at Burlington Airport.

Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.

Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army.

Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.

Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.

Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.

Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.

Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.

Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence.

Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted NO on deploying SDI.

End the use of anti-personnel mines.

Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.***

Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11.

Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays.

Non-proliferation includes disposing of nuclear materials.

Address abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace.

Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror.


These votes span a number of years and Obama agrees on most of them. But he's CinC.

Kucinich told us in a meeting in my town, that BO's duties are far different than a member of Congress. He also said Obama was a progressive and a liberal Democrat. But his position as POTUS entailed him doing a wider range of things in his job.

***Hillary has a 100% rating at SANE as well, which is one of the oldest and most well-known peace groups there is.

For details of the years of those votes and the pros and cons:

http://www.ontheissues.org/international/Bernie_Sanders_Homeland_Security.htm

A little more on his votes, and where he falls on the spectrum politically in that chart***:



Sanders is a Hard-Core Liberalper their chart, which is not strictly anti-war. Sanders is much like FDR, who even like Orwell, weren't strictly anti-war. But neither were for it for profit or religion as the GOP is.

The link says he votes as just an average Democrat. That is why he should run as candidate for the Democratic Party.

***HRC's part on the chart is the same as Sanders, but Clinton is a Liberal Populist.

Many say that about Warren, whose chart shows she is less liberal than HRC, FWIW:



http://ballotpedia.org/Elizabeth_Warren

Note that on National Security, when she was Senator, the votes above by Sanders matched hers, at least some if not all:

Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)

Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)

Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)

Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)


She said she supported what has been hailed this year by PBO. I am uncertain of when she said this, but it was while she was Secretary of State, I guess. We must remember though, that Obama's job is different from anyone else's in government:

I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.

More:

VoteMatch Responses

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)**

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)




Sources:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396578#post44

**A cause of some of the heat directed at her at DU?

That's just a few things from the compilation by NYC Liberal. I've got to go, but perhaps you can see how HRC and Bernie match up by googling.

I don't see that much difference, both have negatives with some and both have positives, in terms of electability. I won't give into what the GOP wants us to FEEL, since most I read is about feelings and not positions as a filter installed by a generation of GOP propaganda.

What I see are more similarities than media hyped differences. They are both, when all is said and done, typical of a liberal Democrat and great people personally, and they don't attack each other. I won't fall into the GOP media game.

Really, must go. That was more than you asked, but I'm going to put it in my Journal.

What 2nd Amendment Solutionists believe:



I grew up in the South, where this kind of talk was common. It was always said tongue in cheek in those days, when the federal government was fully funded and sent troops to enforce federal civil rights laws.

Now that they've 'starved the beast' Libertarian style for years, they are emboldened to speak more directly to what they want.

Rand Paul (R-weasel) danced around this when asked. He as lying, actually, the record is there in numerous videos. We must face the truth about this.

Why We Need to Raise Powerful Children*

What comes to mind when you hear the word “power”? Does it evoke thoughts of control and abuse or do you think about empathy and compassion?



April 10, 2015 by Marie Roker-Jones

When I talk about raising powerful men, I get a mixed reaction, that is until I provide further explanation. As the mom of two boys, I am constantly looking at the world through the lens of sons as black males. I think about their future and how we are influencing how they see themselves and their world. I am frequently torn between reminding them of how the world sees them as black men and empowering them to be proud black men. It’s a delicate balance of teaching them that they are powerful while reinforcing that power isn’t measured by race, gender, money, or position. Don’t get me wrong, I am aware that many in our society are using these measures to benefit how they use power. Yet, that doesn’t give me an excuse to allow my sons to believe it.

I am not naive enough to believe that my sons will not face pressures to either exert what power they believe they have but I am hopeful that the foundations we set will guide them to make the right decisions. I don’t believe that we have to tell our sons that they are greater than or more accomplished than other children in order for them to feel valued, loved, or understood. I believe it’s important that they recognize their strengths and limitations while appreciating the strengths of others.

When we talk to our children about power and leadership, we have to remind them that leaders earn respect by having respect for themselves and others. Power comes from a place of love and not fear. To be powerful, our children have to see the best in themselves as well as in others. While our children may see people that contradict what we are teaching them about power, we can focus on how we raising better leaders for tomorrow.

We are raising future leaders and we have to inspire how they perceive power. When I think about a powerful person, I think about someone who is aware of and manages his/her feelings. A person who knows that power does not lie in controlling, intimidating, or abusing others in order to get results. A powerful person is mindful of how he/she communicates with others. A powerful person is accountable for his/her words and action...


More at the link:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-we-need-to-raise-powerful-children-kerj/

*Disclaimer, I am not black. And this is for all mothers and for the mothers of girls, as described at the rest of the link.

We must define our voice to speak to our children of how to recognize their power and use it to be great human beings.

Crossposted from AA group.

Remember some of those from elementary school. It was dreary. First one we cheered was Shepard.



On May 5, 1961, Shepard piloted the Freedom 7 mission and became the second person, and the first American, to travel into space.[8]"

He was launched by a Redstone rocket, and unlike Gagarin's 108-minute orbital flight, Shepard stayed on a ballistic trajectory—a 15-minute sub-orbital flight which carried him to an altitude of 116 statute miles (187 km) and to a splashdown point 302 statute miles (486 km) down the Atlantic Missile Range...

The launch was seen live on television by millions... Shortly before the launch, Shepard said to himself: "Don't fuck up, Shepard..."[9]


According to Gene Kranz in his book, Failure Is Not an Option, "When reporters asked Shepard what he thought about as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the lowest bidder...'"[10]


It was nice to see the splashdown:



The most memorable one of so many others. My cousin worked IT at NASA during the Moon landing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shepard#Mercury_Seven

All the girls in our class went to see it live on the school's audio video equipment in B&W. It was just before summer vacation. We all had high hopes, and didn't feel it was beyond our grasp to be in the program. It was likely seen by HRC:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251275799

I was told I couldn't do a lot of things for that same reason. It got old with us real quick. And we have never forgotten it.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »