Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
exactly; and we didn't exactly invade when they gassed those poor Khurds, did we? Yet years later, it's a cause celeb jused ot justify US aggression -- Original message -- From: Justin Mohareb [EMAIL PROTECTED] That was before the first Gufl War. Abassador Gillispie told Hussein: We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. JJ Mohareb On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good points. And didn't I hear that, during Saddam's maltreatment of the Khurds, the US ambassador at that time told him we wouldn't interfer into his internal affairs? I seem to remember hearing it was a female ambassador who told him what he did inside his own borders wasn't any of our concern, and I thought I heard the conversation had been taped? -- Read the Bitter Guide to the Bitter Guy. http://thebitterguy.livejournal.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
I think they are all crooks, but she rivals Rove and Cheney, only they are loyal to their allies and she is not. They only reason she is not in jail is because they did not want to prosecute the first lady. While I doubt she will be prosecuted, She is scheduled to take the stand for fraud soon. She has been involved in no less than 15 criminal proceedings. This is NOT the buried stuff, this is the stuff that is out there. However, I accept that we are not likely to agree on her being worse than the average politico in Washington. The Clinton Brand is powerful. In fact, I never believed the stuff they said about her until it began to get more coverage this year. I assumed it was part of the republican attack machine On leaving Iraq, Obama advocates leaving slower than Clinton. She says 16 months and he says 2 years. So, there is not much difference and his plan actually advocates staying a little longer. He has laid out a plan for leaving Iraq. I think they both have plans. I know more about his because I am a fan of two people involved in the crafting over his plan. The short answer is that it involves: Regional Diplomacy, Humanitarian Initiatives, and Pressing Iraq's leaders to reconcile. I think hers involves Humanitarian Initiatives, and Pressing Iraq's leaders to reconcile , but no working with enemies to resolve it. He has discussed his plan numerous times publically, but you can get details about his plan at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:55 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket Hey Tracey Im clear that HRC is an old school beltway powerbroker and has done things which are less than savory. I'm certainly not down with everything she's done. I'm sure that looking over the political career of any of the folks that have made careers in DC would turn up some truly ugly and at times disturbing business. I don't think you can get there without some. However, I don't think her examples are worse than other peoples. All I'm really saying is that warts and all, her presence in the White House wouldn't appall me but I prefer Senator Obama. In the end, the Clinton vs. Obama debate is mostly moot, unless the Democratic power brokers defy the will of the people and give the nomination to Clinton at the convention. The one thing that worries me about Sen. Obama is his position on the war. While I am all for ending it and as soon as possible, I'm also for the moral responsibility of rebuilding a country we have left destroyed. I don't think it's right to simply say we'll just leave. I'd like to see his plan for fixing the mess. He may have one but I haven't seen it anywhere. I'm hopeful that Senator Obama will do the right thing in Iraq and clean up the mess the war criminals have created. Bosco --- On Tue, 5/20/08, tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 8:17 PM I'm glad I misunderstood and that you voted for who you wanted - no matter who that is. I did not perceive you as someone who could be pressured by others in your political decision making. Yahoo! Groups Links
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So once again. If you vote for Obama you are intelligent. If yoy vote for Clinton or the Republcians you are stupid. All I know is that likely voters in Kentucky, who had already said their opinion of Barack Obama had been negatively influenced by his twenty years of attending a Christian church helmed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, STILL thought Obama was a MUSLIM! Nuff said. ~rave!
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Good points. And didn't I hear that, during Saddam's maltreatment of the Khurds, the US ambassador at that time told him we wouldn't interfer into his internal affairs? I seem to remember hearing it was a female ambassador who told him what he did inside his own borders wasn't any of our concern, and I thought I heard the conversation had been taped? -- Original message -- From: James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] True. As I've been an anti-war activist with regard to Iraq since before the war started, I have observed the complete lack of information and knowledge of foreign policy in the hands of most voters. Specifically, most of the people I've spoken with who favor Big Government Wars of Intervention (like Iraq), have no idea that: U.S. involvement in the internal affairs of Iraq and our government's relationship with Huseein began in 1958, NOT 1990 when the CIA, DIA and British Intelligence all conspired to train him (and several others) to assassinate General Abdul Qassim. Over the next two decades, the U.S. continued to use its inside man as he grew in stature to influence affairs in Iraq until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Contrary to the bullshit I was fed by the government when I served in the Gulf War, the Bush Administration did not disapprove of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait UNTIL Hussein announced his intention of nationalizing the oilfields. The U.S. also helped fund and stock the chemical and biological weapons programs Iraq used in its barbaric war with Iran. In addition, both Cheney and Rumsfeld had long-term relationships (political and economic) with Hussein when he was at his worst (mass torture, use of chemical and biological weapons, etc.). Those are the Cliff's Notes version. There is more in an essay I wrote in 2005: Seeking Out Monsters: Ignoring the Advice of John Quincy Adams http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/198/44/ By the way, the Shah of Iran was installed by a Republican Administration when Premier Mohammed Mossadeq (democratically elected) was overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup. The Shah led a very repressive regime (if you were a critic - even worse), which helped fuel the fires behind the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni's successful coup. All of this was put into motion by Eisenhower's meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Jimmy Carter had exactly jack shit to do with that.. -- James Landrith Official website: http://jameslandrith.com TMA: http://multiracial.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jlandrith LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith Facebook: http://apus.facebook.com/profile.php?id=134400205 MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/jlandrith Twitter: http://twitter.com/jlandrith http://twitter.com/nbabyak From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tracey de Morsella Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:59 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket No, but the republicans and more recently, Clinton have sought out with a vengeance, low information voters. I believe Clinton did it out of necessity when she started losing and recognized that she had an edge with that group. So she work to exploit that advantage.. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:32 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket In a message dated 5/20/2008 8:20:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:truthseeker_013%40yahoo.com writes: Gymfig, the Republicans don't want intelligent people. Just ones smart enough to press the touch-screen option next to their candidates' names. They're afraid of all of us pointy-headed liberals... So once again. If you vote for Obama you are intelligent. If yoy vote for Clinton or the Republcians you are stupid. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
That was before the first Gufl War. Abassador Gillispie told Hussein: We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. JJ Mohareb On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good points. And didn't I hear that, during Saddam's maltreatment of the Khurds, the US ambassador at that time told him we wouldn't interfer into his internal affairs? I seem to remember hearing it was a female ambassador who told him what he did inside his own borders wasn't any of our concern, and I thought I heard the conversation had been taped? -- Read the Bitter Guide to the Bitter Guy. http://thebitterguy.livejournal.com
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Hey Tracey Im clear that HRC is an old school beltway powerbroker and has done things which are less than savory. I'm certainly not down with everything she's done. I'm sure that looking over the political career of any of the folks that have made careers in DC would turn up some truly ugly and at times disturbing business. I don't think you can get there without some. However, I don't think her examples are worse than other peoples. All I'm really saying is that warts and all, her presence in the White House wouldn't appall me but I prefer Senator Obama. In the end, the Clinton vs. Obama debate is mostly moot, unless the Democratic power brokers defy the will of the people and give the nomination to Clinton at the convention. The one thing that worries me about Sen. Obama is his position on the war. While I am all for ending it and as soon as possible, I'm also for the moral responsibility of rebuilding a country we have left destroyed. I don't think it's right to simply say we'll just leave. I'd like to see his plan for fixing the mess. He may have one but I haven't seen it anywhere. I'm hopeful that Senator Obama will do the right thing in Iraq and clean up the mess the war criminals have created. Bosco --- On Tue, 5/20/08, tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 8:17 PM I'm glad I misunderstood and that you voted for who you wanted - no matter who that is. I did not perceive you as someone who could be pressured by others in your political decision making.
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Neo: My eyes hurt. (Obama) will have to pay back Corporate America. They put him in office. He will also have to pay off the oil companies. They can destroy him. Everytime my brother-in-law would complain about Bush implementing policy that only benefited fat cats I would ask him How much money did YOU give him? I said that to say this - Obama has collected a quarter of a billion dollars $10 to $100 at a time. How does that make him beholden to Corporate America? Once again, who are They? As I see it, Obama's biggest problem isn't Them. It is people like you. ~(no)rave!
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Sorry! I inadvertently deleted most of my response. Lets try this again - ~rave! Neo: My eyes hurt. Morpheus: That is because you have never used them before. Talking to Hama is not an option Talking to Hezzbolah is not an option This is the same stubborn attitude that got us mired in Viet Nam and Iraq. Obama had to back pedel because he got in trouble with the Isreal and Jewish groups. What makes you think that they will allow him to get away with that? Who are They? Jimmy Carter tried to talk. He allowed the hostages to be taken. He was weak. He was a punk. Going to speak to Hamas and Isreal make him look stupid. Jimmy Carter, the greatest ex-president ever, is an intelligent and moral man. As president he made intelligent and moral decisions. He was undermined by a not-so-liberal media, a facile political opportunist named Ronald Reagan and the on-going stupidity of the American people. Kind of like those Democrats who control the Congress Last time I checked, there was a surplus when Bush took office. Also, history will show Republicans controlled congress for eight of the last ten years. Even the liberal judges have sided with them. It was the liberal judegs that said it was okay for the goverment to take your property for public use. My history book fails to note that the concept of eminent domain was fashioned during the Clinton Administration. Further, the liberal judges who sided with them were put on the bench by those noted liberals Reagan and Bush. He will have to pay back Corporate America. They put him in office. He will also have to pay off the oil companies. They can destroy him. Obama is sitting on a quarter billion dollar campaign fund raised ten to one hundred dollars at a time. How does that make him beholden to Corporate America? Who are They?
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
In a message dated 5/20/2008 6:52:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is the same stubborn attitude that got us mired in Viet Nam and Iraq. Talking to insurgents that are not even recognize by the Iraq government will not help the situation. You can not be held hostage by someone who wants to fill his fathers;s shoes. Who are They? Iseal has and American Jewish groups have forced Obama to do a 180 on his views on the Isreal states. Jimmy Carter, the greatest ex-president ever, is an intelligent and moral man. Jimmy Carters was not very good as a President. As president he made intelligent and moral decisions. He was undermined by a not-so-liberal media, a facile political opportunist named Ronald Reagan and the on-going stupidity of the American people. Of coursee nothing is ever his fault. He knew that the Shah was trouble but toasted him in Iran. First he praises him, then abandons him. 444 days / Rising inflation and unemployment did not help him. Last time I checked, there was a surplus when Bush took office. Clintons the evil racist man did not. Lat time eI checked Democrats were spending money like crazy. Last time I checked the Democrats did not have the votes to bring the troops home. Lat time I checked Democrats still allowed jobs to go overseas. My history book fails to note that the concept of eminent domain was fashioned during the Clinton Administration. Further, the liberal judges who sided with them were put on the bench by those noted liberals Reagan and Bush. True. It was the evil conservative judges that voted against it. Obama is sitting on a quarter billion dollar campaign fund raised ten to one hundred dollars at a time. How does that make him beholden to Corporate America? You don't get that kind of money from little kids empyting their piggy banks.. _http://www.alternet.org/election08/72079/_ (http://www.alternet.org/election08/72079/) **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Gymfig, the Republicans don't want intelligent people. Just ones smart enough to press the touch-screen option next to their candidates' names. They're afraid of all of us pointy-headed liberals... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: got really confused trying to hack through the thicket of the above paragraph. Took me a couple of readings to realize you had swallowed the Republican propaganda about Obama being soft on terrorism because he actually wanted to talk to lawfully elected leaders. Truly remarkable anyone would believe anything the Republicans have to say in light of how badly they have mangled the economy and America' stature in the world. Talking to Hama is not an option Talking to Hezzbolah is not an option Obama had to back pedel because he got in trouble with the Isreal and Jewish groups. What makes you think that they will allow him to get away with that? Jimmy Carter tried to talk. He allowed the hostages to be taken. He was weak. He was a punk. Going to speak to Hamas and Isreal make him look stupid. The raising taxes boogie man is equally amusing. Of course, the Republicans don't raise taxes - they lower them, mouth pious platitudes and continue to spend like drunken sailors. Kind of like those Democrats who control the Congress t Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be saddled with paying off the Bush/Cheney deficit. Something that Clinton did not do. I guess Bill was not that bad. I already know what the Clintons did in office. Everytime the going got hard - they cut bait and ran. The Clintons had a chance to stock the Federal judiciary with moderate democrats and instead let the Republicans stonewall them until Bush became president. What did Bush do? Stock the Federal judiciary with conservative republicans. These judges serve for life. I don't have a problem with him. They have made decisions that I don'thave a problem with. Even the liberal judges have sided with them. It was the liberal judegs that said it was okay for the goverment to take your property for public use. I don't know how Obama will perform in office - but at least he will arrive in office unbeholden to anyone but the millions of average, hardworking Americans who financed his campaign. He will have to pay back Corporate America. They put him in office. He will also have to pay off the oil companies. They can destroy him. Gymfig **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
In a message dated 5/20/2008 8:20:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gymfig, the Republicans don't want intelligent people. Just ones smart enough to press the touch-screen option next to their candidates' names. They're afraid of all of us pointy-headed liberals... So once again. If you vote for Obama you are intelligent. If yoy vote for Clinton or the Republcians you are stupid. **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy Carters(sic) was not very good as a President. Well, everybody can't be George W. Bush. ~(no)rave!
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
He is beholden to corporate America, as they contributed to his campaign and will continue to do so. But he is more beholden to the people and less beholden to those in power than any other successful politician in recent history. However, the key to getting what we want from him is to use that power and I fear people do not yet know how to do it. Obama has used our money as well has the big ticket player's money to build an infrastructure to bring about true change.. His grassroots network. He has trained people to change the system, connected disparate people with their common interests, showed them how to coalesce their money and enabled people to take leadership roles in his campaign so they can flex their activist muscle. Additionally, his plan involves working to assist down ticket candidates on the local level. He also periodically hints that if he is president, you will have to make him make the changes you want. Just last week he launched the grassroots civil rights fellowship and set up a massive civil rights voting program that threatens to make the republicans a fringe group. He has laid the groundwork for a nationwide grassroots takeover of government agenda. He can not overtly tell us what to do with it or it will be shut down before it is empowered. There is some sign that people are using it. I hope we figure it out and take advantage of it -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ravenadal Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:38 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket Neo: My eyes hurt. (Obama) will have to pay back Corporate America. They put him in office. He will also have to pay off the oil companies. They can destroy him. Everytime my brother-in-law would complain about Bush implementing policy that only benefited fat cats I would ask him How much money did YOU give him? I said that to say this - Obama has collected a quarter of a billion dollars $10 to $100 at a time. How does that make him beholden to Corporate America? Once again, who are They? As I see it, Obama's biggest problem isn't Them. It is people like you. ~(no)rave! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Please do not go out into public saying things like this. Iraq HAD a government. We KILLED them. And replaced them with people WE WANTED there. Please go get a 4th grade history book and you will be reminded that this country was founded by insurgents. This is supposed to be a British colony. On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:48:50 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Talking to insurgents that are not even recognize by the Iraq government will not help the situation. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Ha! -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ravenadal Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:17 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy Carters(sic) was not very good as a President. Well, everybody can't be George W. Bush. ~(no)rave! Yahoo! Groups Links
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Thank you for this analysis. What continues to amaze me about people who consider Obama an elitist is that the entire Republican Revolution of the eighties and nineties was concocted in Conservative think tanks run by pointy-headed conservative elitists. Also laughable is Obama's perceived inexperience. Through his preparation as a grass-roots community organizer, his sojourn through academia through his successfully navigating the rough and tumble world of Chicago-style bare knuckle politics, he may be the most prepared first term president ever. People react as if he has gotten where he is through pluck and luck, but he arrived at being the presumptive Democratic nominee by out-foxing and out-strategising the more experienced Clinton campaign at almost every turn. Hillary thought she could place her big, brass balls on the table and the game would be over. Obama realized early on that it would be a long, protracted struggle and planned accordingly. Therefore, he is coasting toward the finish line flush with funds while Hillary limps there badly leaking cash. Foresight and preparation bodes well for Obama, the less experienced candidate. If we had more foresight and preparation from the current administration we would not be mired in Iraq and a deepening recession. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He is beholden to corporate America, as they contributed to his campaign and will continue to do so. But he is more beholden to the people and less beholden to those in power than any other successful politician in recent history. However, the key to getting what we want from him is to use that power and I fear people do not yet know how to do it. Obama has used our money as well has the big ticket player's money to build an infrastructure to bring about true change.. His grassroots network. He has trained people to change the system, connected disparate people with their common interests, showed them how to coalesce their money and enabled people to take leadership roles in his campaign so they can flex their activist muscle. Additionally, his plan involves working to assist down ticket candidates on the local level. He also periodically hints that if he is president, you will have to make him make the changes you want. Just last week he launched the grassroots civil rights fellowship and set up a massive civil rights voting program that threatens to make the republicans a fringe group. He has laid the groundwork for a nationwide grassroots takeover of government agenda. He can not overtly tell us what to do with it or it will be shut down before it is empowered. There is some sign that people are using it. I hope we figure it out and take advantage of it -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ravenadal Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:38 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket Neo: My eyes hurt. (Obama) will have to pay back Corporate America. They put him in office. He will also have to pay off the oil companies. They can destroy him. Everytime my brother-in-law would complain about Bush implementing policy that only benefited fat cats I would ask him How much money did YOU give him? I said that to say this - Obama has collected a quarter of a billion dollars $10 to $100 at a time. How does that make him beholden to Corporate America? Once again, who are They? As I see it, Obama's biggest problem isn't Them. It is people like you. ~(no)rave! Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
True. As I've been an anti-war activist with regard to Iraq since before the war started, I have observed the complete lack of information and knowledge of foreign policy in the hands of most voters. Specifically, most of the people I've spoken with who favor Big Government Wars of Intervention (like Iraq), have no idea that: U.S. involvement in the internal affairs of Iraq and our government's relationship with Huseein began in 1958, NOT 1990 when the CIA, DIA and British Intelligence all conspired to train him (and several others) to assassinate General Abdul Qassim. Over the next two decades, the U.S. continued to use its inside man as he grew in stature to influence affairs in Iraq until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Contrary to the bullshit I was fed by the government when I served in the Gulf War, the Bush Administration did not disapprove of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait UNTIL Hussein announced his intention of nationalizing the oilfields. The U.S. also helped fund and stock the chemical and biological weapons programs Iraq used in its barbaric war with Iran. In addition, both Cheney and Rumsfeld had long-term relationships (political and economic) with Hussein when he was at his worst (mass torture, use of chemical and biological weapons, etc.). Those are the Cliff's Notes version. There is more in an essay I wrote in 2005: Seeking Out Monsters: Ignoring the Advice of John Quincy Adams http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/198/44/ By the way, the Shah of Iran was installed by a Republican Administration when Premier Mohammed Mossadeq (democratically elected) was overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup. The Shah led a very repressive regime (if you were a critic - even worse), which helped fuel the fires behind the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni's successful coup. All of this was put into motion by Eisenhower's meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Jimmy Carter had exactly jack shit to do with that.. -- James Landrith Official website: http://jameslandrith.com TMA: http://multiracial.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jlandrith LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith Facebook: http://apus.facebook.com/profile.php?id=134400205 MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/jlandrith Twitter: http://twitter.com/jlandrith http://twitter.com/nbabyak From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tracey de Morsella Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:59 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket No, but the republicans and more recently, Clinton have sought out with a vengeance, low information voters. I believe Clinton did it out of necessity when she started losing and recognized that she had an edge with that group. So she work to exploit that advantage.. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:32 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket In a message dated 5/20/2008 8:20:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:truthseeker_013%40yahoo.com writes: Gymfig, the Republicans don't want intelligent people. Just ones smart enough to press the touch-screen option next to their candidates' names. They're afraid of all of us pointy-headed liberals... So once again. If you vote for Obama you are intelligent. If yoy vote for Clinton or the Republcians you are stupid. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
In a message dated 5/20/2008 9:49:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please do not go out into public saying things like this. Iraq HAD a government. We KILLED them. We may have gone to war for the wrong reasons but I am sure that the Shiites and Saudia Arabia are not missing them that much. **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
(standing ovation) ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy Carters(sic) was not very good as a President. Well, everybody can't be George W. Bush. ~(no)rave! There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Wow?!! Tracey you got your thing off...and I usually don't chime in on Sci Fi with the political commentary...I save that for eleswhere...but Tracey your points below are the most even handed and detailed I have ever seen you post...Bravo for the depth of knowledge given and understanding displayed. Actually Bravo you all, and please continue this excellent discussion both sides have made some very interesting pointsI will only say that with the recent discovery of Ted Kennedy's illness...it could come down to a win one for the gipper scenario that could be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP...but that is all i am going to add to this very excellent discussion don't want to lower it any more than I have Bree or Aubrey to my new friend on the thread Aubrey. - Original Message - From: Tracey de Morsella Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:25 pm Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I'm sure you know what you are talking about, but you statements make me wonder if you are simply buying into Clinton's rhetoric, as they contradictpublically available FEC reports. They indicate that more than 50% of his money is coming from donors who contributed less than $200. Prior to the Kitchen sink strategy and Rev Wright, Obama won the majority of whites and blue collar workers as well as women in the following states. CO, MO, AK, NB,WI, VA, MD, ME, ID, NE, WA, IA, VT, KS and I think three other states. WI, ME, IA, ID, KS, are not rich states, nor do they have high Black populations He also won white support in that Black dominated state called WY Since Pennsylvania, he has increased his white support to 40+% in IN He is polling with more white and blue collar support than Clinton in OR, MT, and SD. He is winning with Asians and Latinos in OR. His support with Latino's is going up in CA and NJ so much so he is beating her in polls in those states by double digits, despite that fact she won those states. However, I am not discounting that he is getting very little white support in the Appalachian states of KY, or WV. ..Or that he will likely loose PR by 30 - 40%. I know that does not support my claims, but facts are more important to me than rhetoric or even being right. I see these discussionsas opportunities to gain knowledge and open myself to new perspectives more than winning the argument. Perhaps you know more about the demographics of all the states listed above then I do, but most of them do not have high numbers of Blacks. Much of the money supporting him is coming from those states. SO, it seems unlikelythat all the whites that say they support and contribute and volunteer would be lying and that Blacks are making up most of the 1,500,000+ donors that are contributing more than one billion dollars to him. Source: FEC, Opensecrets.org. If you stick to the rhetoric, you will now bring up caucuses and how undemocratic, unfair to blue collar whites and dumb, they are. Many of those states had primaries, three of the states with caucuses had beauty contest primaries as well as caucuses - which he won; and he polled very high and continues to poll very high in those states with caucuses so it is likely that he would have won those states as primaries. Since you are not a low-information voter who simply spouts the rhetoric of his or her favorite politico, I have to wonder where you are getting your facts. Because they do not reflect government data, exit polls or surveys. sO, while these numbers do not support your premise, this info is publically available by the government, his site and most independent polling companies and well as campaign finance tracking sites. There is also much antidotalevidence to back it up. Since you think it is just Black people supporting him - we only make up 12% of the population, do you think that there is some kind of media, polling company and government, finance tracking organizationconspiracy covering up the source of that money? However, again, since my purpose is not rhetoric spouting or even winning let me state again,while he is not as beholden to them as Clinton or Mc Cain to corporate America, he is beholden to him. What sets him apart is that he is beholden to people as well. So, he will be answerable that interest group (the people) as well as the big companies and risks seeing that support his support dry up. That does not mean that we will not be able to do what the Clintons did and sell us out to corporate prison industry, Enron, Monsanto, Banking industry, the environment, etc.. will throwing us the occasionalhigh profile bone. In fact, I anticipate he will. But if we stop with the rhetoric and pay attention and get proactive, because we invested in him and because he has been providing to also to hold him
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Blacks support him as you seem to. In fact, if you are going to stick to her rhetoric in arguing against Obama, you should note that she thinks latte, sipping Volvo driving elites working in education support him too. Last time I looked there were not that many Blacks in those numbers. Also he has raised over a billion dollars or more with most of it coming from the people. Do you really think that is only Black support? One more fact that fly's in the face of your rhetoric that only Blacks support Obama Recent polls show him tying or beating her with White men, White Women, and Blue Collar workers. The only group she is still beating him with nationally is White women over 50. Admitted this is a recent development that is likely a result of him laying to rest some of the Reverend Wright stuff and that he is perceived to have won. People tend to jump on the band wagon of winners. Other polls show that Mc Cain beats both Clinton and Obama equally with whites in repeated match ups and that his white support is similar to Kerry's white support Blacks did not give their support without question as you say, at least not most of them. In fact, up until December, he was supported primarily by the Whites you say do not support him. Veterans who you say do not support him, jumped on the bandwagon before us too. We were the last group to support him.It took him over a year to get us on board. That being said, I would say that Obama, Clinton and Mc Cain have lots of supporters from all backgrounds who do not read, question or investigate and simply believe what the candidate tells them or what they get in 10 second sound bites. That more reflect flaws in our society as a whole than any one candidate. Most politicians take advantage of this flaw. These days, Clinton is working that angle more than most, but I think Mc Cain, Obama and many others do so as well. They all thrive on it. If people really understood what was going on, we would overthrow the government. You ridicule Obama's talk of change. I get that and can relate. I do not think Obama can or will make major changes unless forced to as I said below, so in this case there is no need to repeat your candidate's rhetoric. In fact, he has said as much. Your argument in this instance would be better served with a low-information Obama supporter who simply spouts his rhetoric. As I said below, the tools for change have been put in place but I have concerns as to whether people will use them. Regarding people at the grassroots rallying together to try to make those in power address our needs... You say hippie cult, I say grassroots activism. If Martin Luther King and others could organize millions to address these issues in the past, why is it a hippie cult now to want people to do the same now? Of course, after years of reading your posts, I would not be surprised if you had a great deal of contempt for King and others like him and their efforts. This need for people to pay attention, stop reciting the rhetoric of our favorites politico, get up off our asses and use the tools at our disposal to force our government to step up is so beyond the Clinton vs. Obama. It is about reversing course and preserving our futures. But since you seem to like to talk and discuss things in terms of rhetoric, I will sign off in those terms that seem to appeal to you... more rhetoric. Peace Baby Stick it to the man Did I get my line right? Can't move out of my stereotype right? Your turn... Don't forget to stick to the script. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:21 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket In a message dated 5/20/2008 9:47:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He is beholden to corporate America, as they contributed to his campaign and will continue to do so. But he is more beholden to the people and less beholden to those in power than any other successful politician in recent history. However, the key to getting what we want from him is to use that power and I fear people do not yet know how to do it. You must be talking about Blacks. Every group has asked What are you goint to do for me? Latinos, Asian, Arabs, coporate America, white women, white men, Working class whites, jews,the Military, Nasa etc. Blacks are th only group that has given him their support without any question. Please don't talk abut how Clinton threw it away. Please don't tell me he is not running for president of black America. When evver Blacks question him, they are called sellouts or are jealous. As long blacck gave Obama 90% of their vote hed can tell them to repsect the verdict and don't riot. As long as black voted
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Hey Tracey There are many things that I like about both candidates. I just happen to like more things about Obama so I went with him. However, in the end it was her flip on her position about the war that decided it for me. Frankly, Obama's position on the war seems less than realistic but her's seemed dishonest. The war and it's consequences (i.e. the shattered economy) were my main concern, immediately followed by healthcare. I think that HRC has a lot of qualities and a lot of flaws. I felt the same way about her husband. I think that many of those flaws would make excellent qualities in a President, again very much like her husband. On many complaints, I feel she gets a raw deal. For example, I don't believe for a second that Obama is any less ambitious than HRC but no one seems to think that ambition in a man is a flaw. However, ambition in a woman seems to be a deal breaker. Frankly, I wouldn't be interested in a candidate who was not overly ambitious. They would, in my estimation, lack the stones to do the job. I voted for Obama because I liked more things about his candidacy than Clintons. However, I would not have been unhappy with Clinton as the victor. Either candidate is an ideal choice over John McCain who in my mind is a disaster as big as the present one we are all suffereing through. Perhaps that clears things up. I will add this, when the race comes down to the superdelegates at the convention and Obama is denied the victory, I will feel very betrayed by the process. I believe he is the clear choice of the majority of democrats at this point and he should get the support of the superdelegates where he has won primaries and caucuses. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bosco: Thanks for the explanation and the wonderful complement. I was just kidding. I like playing Veep-stakes and even though you asked Keith, I decided to give my view. If you like Clinton, I'm not sure I understand why you voted for Obama.
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
You are right Tracey. Obama is gaining among Clinton votes. The Gallup poll suggest as much. I also feel that he may even win KY. I have to agree that Obam ran a more effective campaign. I do NOT agree that anyone that votes for Clinto is a uneducated inforative hick **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
rave, pride won't factor into it until she's certain that they can find the voting booth and push the touch-screen on her behalf without blowing it up. ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yours is an interesting prospective. One shared by 94% of the electorate in West Virginia (one of our more progessive states). It is also interesting to me that, nationally, the 50% of white democrats that support Obama is the 50% that can read and write and count to ten without taking off their shoes. Hillary must be proud to be the candidate of the uninformed and the uneducated. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/18/2008 10:03:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The second reason? Hillary's ambition. This lady wants to be Prez, and everything from her veiled racist strategy (I get hard-working, white voters) to the other dirty tricks show she'd work behind the scenes to undermine Obama. I think-and I believe Obama thinks--that she'd be plotting against him all the time she's grinning in his face. She's in her 60's now, think she wants to wait *eight* years and try again? No way in hell. And trying to be a VP who then steps out and challenges your Prez in the next election, how damaging would that be? Has that ever been done, a VP challenging his sitting Prez for the nomination? Talk about a mess. I can't see Obama wanting to deal with that potential hazard. What makes you think Obama is going to get two terms? Obama does not have support among Regan democrats. He does not have support among a lot of whites. What is so racist about that? He does have 90% of the black vote. (Blacks always have voted demarcate. By falling for the Obama's run is a fairy tale myth: He got all of the vote) White people are the majority and they are splitting the vote. Latinos are the largest minority and vote republican or have voted for her. It is not racist that she points that out. It is also not racist if you do not vote for Obama. I admire her ambition and not being quiet. She brings in people that WILL NOT vote for him and will either vote for Mccain or not vote at all. Dick Cheney was running the White House. He made Bush look electable. The VP needs to be strong if the Pres cannot not run the country. It is not Hillary's fault she was running for POTUS. People act as if she is was wrong for running against Obama. He is not entitled to be sheltered from scrutiny just because he is both black and a man. She is his opponent. What is she supposed to do? **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
One more thing...- attr. to Jackie Chan's Uncle, Jackie Chan Adventures I recall seeign a blurb on Faux/Fixed/Fox news on the night of the WV primary, stating that the median income for `citizens there is $50,000. I've driven through the state as far as Rochester and, from what I remember seeing, I figure that everyone in Rochester must be multi-millionaires, from the garbage collectors on down... ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yours is an interesting prospective. One shared by 94% of the electorate in West Virginia (one of our more progessive states). It is also interesting to me that, nationally, the 50% of white democrats that support Obama is the 50% that can read and write and count to ten without taking off their shoes. Hillary must be proud to be the candidate of the uninformed and the uneducated. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/18/2008 10:03:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The second reason? Hillary's ambition. This lady wants to be Prez, and everything from her veiled racist strategy (I get hard-working, white voters) to the other dirty tricks show she'd work behind the scenes to undermine Obama. I think-and I believe Obama thinks--that she'd be plotting against him all the time she's grinning in his face. She's in her 60's now, think she wants to wait *eight* years and try again? No way in hell. And trying to be a VP who then steps out and challenges your Prez in the next election, how damaging would that be? Has that ever been done, a VP challenging his sitting Prez for the nomination? Talk about a mess. I can't see Obama wanting to deal with that potential hazard. What makes you think Obama is going to get two terms? Obama does not have support among Regan democrats. He does not have support among a lot of whites. What is so racist about that? He does have 90% of the black vote. (Blacks always have voted demarcate. By falling for the Obama's run is a fairy tale myth: He got all of the vote) White people are the majority and they are splitting the vote. Latinos are the largest minority and vote republican or have voted for her. It is not racist that she points that out. It is also not racist if you do not vote for Obama. I admire her ambition and not being quiet. She brings in people that WILL NOT vote for him and will either vote for Mccain or not vote at all. Dick Cheney was running the White House. He made Bush look electable. The VP needs to be strong if the Pres cannot not run the country. It is not Hillary's fault she was running for POTUS. People act as if she is was wrong for running against Obama. He is not entitled to be sheltered from scrutiny just because he is both black and a man. She is his opponent. What is she supposed to do? **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
I agree. In addition to worry about his safety (I'm only half kidding). I think she and Bill wound work agressively to make him politically impotent. They would triangulate and contradict his efforts. I think both are used to being in charge and struggle to play nice politically and to working in the interests of all as evidenced by loss of democrats at the federal, state and local level; her reluctance to campaign for congressional dems, her reluctance to contribute to to the campaigns of congressionals dems, her ease in threatening those who do not do what she wants, her ease in taking credit for the work of others; intentionally undermining Kerry last year; siphoning fundraising money from congressional dems running for re-elections and well as doing the same to Kerry and Gore for her senate campaign. Her opponent had $4 million dollars and yet she needed $140 million to run against him. She is not a team player except for when she is leading the team --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me, the two biggest reasons I've said for a year now that she shouldn't be on the ticket are her husband, and her own ambition. As listed below, Bill can't keep his thoughts to himself. I can't even imagine what it'd be like to have him: angry at Hillary being only the veep, disparaging of Obama's lack of experience, full of himself and the advice he'd have to give as a two-term Prez, ticked when Obama would (inevitably) not seek out, and actively ignore, said advice, and frankly, jealous of the spotlight Obama would have. The second reason? Hillary's ambition. This lady wants to be Prez, and everything from her veiled racist strategy (I get hard-working, white voters) to the other dirty tricks show she'd work behind the scenes to undermine Obama. I think-and I believe Obama thinks--that she'd be plotting against him all the time she's grinning in his face. She's in her 60's now, think she wants to wait *eight* years and try again? No way in hell. And trying to be a VP who then steps out and challenges your Prez in the next election, how damaging would that be? Has that ever been done, a VP challenging his sitting Prez for the nomination? Talk about a mess. I can't see Obama wanting to deal with that potential hazard. -- Original message -- From: ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-change_dems_bd18may18,0,7163200.story chicagotribune.com Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket Tribune staff report May 18, 2008 The Democratic primary battle may not technically be over, but I'm ready to move on to the next phase of windy speculation and gratuitous strategery. So here are eight reasons Barack Obama should not offer Hillary Clinton the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket: 1. She's a familiar Washington insider and a major premise of his candidacy has been changing the ways of Washington. 2. She's pandered brazenly and attacked personally on the campaign trail, showing herself to be the embodiment of the old way of doing politics Obama has disparaged. 3. Her husband, the former president, has shown an inability to stay on message and keep his foot out of his mouth. 4. She's polarizing. Clinton's unfavorable ratings are from 7 to 16 points higher than Obama's in recent national polls. 5. She'll star in Republican attack ads against Obama: The I believe that I've met the qualifications to be commander-in-chief ad will show her saying, Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy. 6. She crossed the line when she repeated this thought several times to reporters in early March: I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002. 7. She's toting unpacked baggage. Obama's high-road approach has kept him from doing what Republican operatives are itching to do: Dig up the half-buried Clinton family scandals of the 1990s and turn over every rock from the last eight years looking for more. 8. Politically, a teammate is better than a counterweight. Bill Clinton himself demonstrated this when he picked another young moderate Democrat from the mid-South Al Gore of Tennessee and the two ran a vigorous, consistent campaign. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
In a message dated 5/19/2008 4:49:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yours is an interesting prospective. One shared by 94% of the electorate in West Virginia (one of our more progessive states). It is also interesting to me that, nationally, the 50% of white democrats that support Obama is the 50% that can read and write and count to ten without taking off their shoes. Hillary must be proud to be the candidate of the uninformed and the uneducated. ~rave! So Clinton voters are uneducated hicks while Obama suupports are uneducated integrationist liberals. Who is the racist? . Clinton is a politician. Obama got upset with Wright because he called Obama a politician. No wonder there are those that don't like him. Maybe it is the same people that don't want to sit down with people who need terrorism so they don't have to answer to their people on why they have not fixed their own country's problems, have illegal immigration, have more H1-B cheap labor, have their income taxed to no in, think NASA should be funded, contnue our place in Iraq. Obama tolds blacks in NY to respect the verdict of Sean Bell and not riot. Can you imagine Clinton saying that? Can you imagine any white person saying that? Clinton said it was wrong. Obama held his finger up to Jena 6 to see which way the wind blew. If they are so similar in viewpoints, why is it okay for blacks to vote for a black man but wrong for whites to vote for a white person or a white woman? I have always been a moderate Democrat. I really don't want a world apologist in teh White House. **Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod000301) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No wonder there are those that don't like him. Maybe it is the same people that don't want to sit down with people who need terrorism so they don't have to answer to their people on why they have not fixed their own country's problems, have illegal immigration, have more H1-B cheap labor, have their income taxed to no in, think NASA should be funded, contnue our place in Iraq. Obama tolds blacks in NY to respect the verdict of Sean Bell and not riot. Can you imagine Clinton saying that? Can you imagine any white person saying that? Clinton said it was wrong. Obama held his finger up to Jena 6 to see which way the wind blew. I got really confused trying to hack through the thicket of the above paragraph. Took me a couple of readings to realize you had swallowed the Republican propaganda about Obama being soft on terrorism because he actually wanted to talk to lawfully elected leaders. Truly remarkable anyone would believe anything the Republicans have to say in light of how badly they have mangled the economy and America' stature in the world. The raising taxes boogie man is equally amusing. Of course, the Republicans don't raise taxes - they lower them, mouth pious platitudes and continue to spend like drunken sailors. Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be saddled with paying off the Bush/Cheney deficit. I have always been a moderate Democrat. I really don't want a world apologist in teh White House. I already know what the Clintons did in office. Everytime the going got hard - they cut bait and ran. The Clintons had a chance to stock the Federal judiciary with moderate democrats and instead let the Republicans stonewall them until Bush became president. What did Bush do? Stock the Federal judiciary with conservative republicans. These judges serve for life. I don't know how Obama will perform in office - but at least he will arrive in office unbeholden to anyone but the millions of average, hardworking Americans who financed his campaign. ~rave!
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket
Bravo!!! -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ravenadal Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 7:58 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: OT:Top reasons Clinton should not get on dream ticket --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No wonder there are those that don't like him. Maybe it is the same people that don't want to sit down with people who need terrorism so they don't have to answer to their people on why they have not fixed their own country's problems, have illegal immigration, have more H1-B cheap labor, have their income taxed to no in, think NASA should be funded, contnue our place in Iraq. Obama tolds blacks in NY to respect the verdict of Sean Bell and not riot. Can you imagine Clinton saying that? Can you imagine any white person saying that? Clinton said it was wrong. Obama held his finger up to Jena 6 to see which way the wind blew. I got really confused trying to hack through the thicket of the above paragraph. Took me a couple of readings to realize you had swallowed the Republican propaganda about Obama being soft on terrorism because he actually wanted to talk to lawfully elected leaders. Truly remarkable anyone would believe anything the Republicans have to say in light of how badly they have mangled the economy and America' stature in the world. The raising taxes boogie man is equally amusing. Of course, the Republicans don't raise taxes - they lower them, mouth pious platitudes and continue to spend like drunken sailors. Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be saddled with paying off the Bush/Cheney deficit. I have always been a moderate Democrat. I really don't want a world apologist in teh White House. I already know what the Clintons did in office. Everytime the going got hard - they cut bait and ran. The Clintons had a chance to stock the Federal judiciary with moderate democrats and instead let the Republicans stonewall them until Bush became president. What did Bush do? Stock the Federal judiciary with conservative republicans. These judges serve for life. I don't know how Obama will perform in office - but at least he will arrive in office unbeholden to anyone but the millions of average, hardworking Americans who financed his campaign. ~rave! Yahoo! Groups Links
