Dean's unfortunate decision was just wrong. I don't agree with penalizing these people because of a conflict Dean had with the officials of a few states. Also, didn't other states move their dates without punishment? Funding aside, I was and continue to be open to a revote.
I agree with what you are saying about the necessity of appearing to support the troops, but what power over the President in this situation does Congress have besides cutting the purse strings? They're not doing their jobs if they continue to fund the war time and time again. IMO, in this situation, voting no IS supporting the troops.
... so you're saying don't count Florida and Michigan? the two biggest swing states responsible for throwing an election?
Obama is too like McCain for my tastes (supports infrastructure privatization including, but not limited to, water, road, and highway). Also McCain and Obama have advisors that have supported the merging of US, Canada, and Western Europe to further militarily oppress the world. Lets all hope Obama tells this guy and that guy to shove it. Obama's "I voted against the War but continue to fund it" slogan has always bothered me a little. However, the concert of democracies idea is another ploy like SPP, NAU, EU, etc. (a supranational group having jurisdiction over sovereign nations). Not my cup of tea.
Hillary leads the popular vote. Why use delegates as the determining benchmark? His campaign is all but forcing the superdelegates to decide their vote early. So electoral-college-esque...
i second that... sounds like a game of hot potato is starting. the truth is some people (various sales people, lenders, brokers, etc.) were making a killing and nobody wanted the party to end.
Whole heartedly believe information presented to them? It's the same here to a lesser degree. Most people believe that if something is on Fox and CNN then it must be true. People forget that the media outlets are owned by a small group of massive conglomerates that often push their own agenda.
I totally agree...
I was just reading an article today about NAFTA that said "Union groups claim 1 million jobs lost in US since passage of NAFTA" and went on to say Mexican unions say they have lost 2.5 million jobs. Liberalization of Mexico's banking system reduced the amount of money loaned to Mexican small businesses from 10% to 0.8%.
Clearly the only ones benefiting are big business and the politicians they support. I think the only way we can stop it is clean money campaigns. The presidential candidates are already spending more money than the budget of small developing nations.
Even if our unemployment is only 5%, it doesn't count people not on unemployment, people whose benefits have expired, and those underemployed. I love tax rebate checks as much as the next guy, but shouldn't we be investing in our infrastructure? Bringing our D- rated infrastructure up to speed and constructing oil consumption-reducing high speed rail will turn around the job losses and auto industry collapse.
Thoughts?
"Would so many in the US be so hot to leave Iraq if there were not so many American casualties? I personally doubt it."
It's hard to not expect a political response when you assert your political opinion. Maybe the desire to leave has something to do with the huge cost of the no bid privatized service contracts benefiting Lord Cheney's company, as well as the cost of interest to be paid on this unfathomable sum. Also, think how all that money would have provided us with renewable energy and a developed economy with high paying, meaningful jobs. Oh ya, we had to go over there to stop Al Queda... Mr. Bush, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 again? (Remember his answer? Nothing.)
Lets get the hell out... enough senseless waste of life (on both sides) and money.
Slashdot Mirror
Dean's unfortunate decision was just wrong. I don't agree with penalizing these people because of a conflict Dean had with the officials of a few states. Also, didn't other states move their dates without punishment? Funding aside, I was and continue to be open to a revote.
I agree with what you are saying about the necessity of appearing to support the troops, but what power over the President in this situation does Congress have besides cutting the purse strings? They're not doing their jobs if they continue to fund the war time and time again. IMO, in this situation, voting no IS supporting the troops.
... so you're saying don't count Florida and Michigan? the two biggest swing states responsible for throwing an election?
Obama is too like McCain for my tastes (supports infrastructure privatization including, but not limited to, water, road, and highway). Also McCain and Obama have advisors that have supported the merging of US, Canada, and Western Europe to further militarily oppress the world. Lets all hope Obama tells this guy and that guy to shove it. Obama's "I voted against the War but continue to fund it" slogan has always bothered me a little. However, the concert of democracies idea is another ploy like SPP, NAU, EU, etc. (a supranational group having jurisdiction over sovereign nations). Not my cup of tea.
Hillary leads the popular vote. Why use delegates as the determining benchmark? His campaign is all but forcing the superdelegates to decide their vote early. So electoral-college-esque...
i second that... sounds like a game of hot potato is starting. the truth is some people (various sales people, lenders, brokers, etc.) were making a killing and nobody wanted the party to end.
Whole heartedly believe information presented to them? It's the same here to a lesser degree. Most people believe that if something is on Fox and CNN then it must be true. People forget that the media outlets are owned by a small group of massive conglomerates that often push their own agenda.
I totally agree... I was just reading an article today about NAFTA that said "Union groups claim 1 million jobs lost in US since passage of NAFTA" and went on to say Mexican unions say they have lost 2.5 million jobs. Liberalization of Mexico's banking system reduced the amount of money loaned to Mexican small businesses from 10% to 0.8%. Clearly the only ones benefiting are big business and the politicians they support. I think the only way we can stop it is clean money campaigns. The presidential candidates are already spending more money than the budget of small developing nations. Even if our unemployment is only 5%, it doesn't count people not on unemployment, people whose benefits have expired, and those underemployed. I love tax rebate checks as much as the next guy, but shouldn't we be investing in our infrastructure? Bringing our D- rated infrastructure up to speed and constructing oil consumption-reducing high speed rail will turn around the job losses and auto industry collapse. Thoughts?
"Would so many in the US be so hot to leave Iraq if there were not so many American casualties? I personally doubt it." It's hard to not expect a political response when you assert your political opinion. Maybe the desire to leave has something to do with the huge cost of the no bid privatized service contracts benefiting Lord Cheney's company, as well as the cost of interest to be paid on this unfathomable sum. Also, think how all that money would have provided us with renewable energy and a developed economy with high paying, meaningful jobs. Oh ya, we had to go over there to stop Al Queda... Mr. Bush, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 again? (Remember his answer? Nothing.) Lets get the hell out... enough senseless waste of life (on both sides) and money.