Saturday, June 30, 2007
Does this make a male child possible from female bone marrow?! Cheney's grandchild?!
I knew that this could be possible years ago.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Gentlewoman Elizabeth Edwards takes on the GOP's Poster Child
Wow, you may have heard that that Coulter (I swore I'd never mention her by name again--but now I have new reasons) waits for her wish for John Edwards to be killed in a terrorist attack. She made her wish for the killing of a Presidential candidate known on GOOD MORNING AMERICA yesterday which is stunning in itself, and then denied that she'd said anything about Edwards the following day on Hard Ball.
I intend to lambast any network that gives this hate-monger a platform. She is useless except for hateful controversy and Democratic fundraising. I do think that the left can no longer ignore her and just raise money off of her; we have to attack the press who give her a platform. Elizabeth Edwards stopped short of taking Christ Matthews to task, she shouldn't have.
Peace.
I intend to lambast any network that gives this hate-monger a platform. She is useless except for hateful controversy and Democratic fundraising. I do think that the left can no longer ignore her and just raise money off of her; we have to attack the press who give her a platform. Elizabeth Edwards stopped short of taking Christ Matthews to task, she shouldn't have.
Peace.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Edwards Campaign Addresses the PAC attack
"What happens when the candidate who will shake up Washington the most also has the best chance of getting elected?
Everyone who likes things just the way they are gets scared and goes on the attack. If they can't attack the substance, they'll create "scandals" any way they can.
We are fighting back hard but we need your help. If we hit our second quarter goal of $9 million in the next 6 days we can break through to voters with our real message of change. It's up to all of us to do our part. I just gave $100—can you please give whatever you can afford today?
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell [I linked the title to the fundraising if you're interested; I strongly advocate Campaign Finance Reform, but until then...]
The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual. The Washington lobbyists and PACs don't want us to win because John is the only candidate who has never taken money from them. The political mercenaries and the chattering class don't want us to win because they can't imagine a president who doesn't play by their rules. And you can bet that the big corporate interests—from the insurance companies to the drug companies to the oil companies—don't want us to win because John has been taking on special interests his entire life. So they attack him—personally.
It's classic—they don't want the American people to hear the message, so they attack the messenger. They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and—heaven forbid!—he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.
Enough is enough. Together, we can put substance above cynicism and beat back these desperate attacks.
Your contribution, combined with donations from hundreds of thousands of others, has tremendous power. All our small change can add up to big change for America and the world. So please give what you can today:
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell
Like many of you, I've been with John since 2004. The same folks who are attacking him now went after him then. You know why? Because the Bush inner circle sensed what the polls tell us today—that John Edwards is the best general election candidate we've got. Last time they attacked his hair; this time it's his haircut. But it's the same sad game. And this time, we can beat it.
For all the reasons we got into this—to bring our troops back from Iraq, to solve global warming, to guarantee universal health care and to eliminate poverty—and because we believe the politics of substance and purpose must trump cynicism and personal destruction—this is a fight we must win. And together, we can.
Please give whatever you can afford to help us hit our $9 million goal by June 30th:
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell
Sincerely,
--Jonathan Prince
Deputy Campaign Manager
John Edwards for President
Monday, June 25, 2007
P.S. Last week The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions. As if there's any way to draw attention to poverty without publicity! And to make matters worse, the reporter just refused to even talk with any of the people who benefited—like any of the 200 young people who got scholarships through the College for Everyone program, or the 700 students who went to New Orleans with John to help rebuild. So we really need your help to get our message out; please, give what you can today"
Everyone who likes things just the way they are gets scared and goes on the attack. If they can't attack the substance, they'll create "scandals" any way they can.
We are fighting back hard but we need your help. If we hit our second quarter goal of $9 million in the next 6 days we can break through to voters with our real message of change. It's up to all of us to do our part. I just gave $100—can you please give whatever you can afford today?
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell [I linked the title to the fundraising if you're interested; I strongly advocate Campaign Finance Reform, but until then...]
The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual. The Washington lobbyists and PACs don't want us to win because John is the only candidate who has never taken money from them. The political mercenaries and the chattering class don't want us to win because they can't imagine a president who doesn't play by their rules. And you can bet that the big corporate interests—from the insurance companies to the drug companies to the oil companies—don't want us to win because John has been taking on special interests his entire life. So they attack him—personally.
It's classic—they don't want the American people to hear the message, so they attack the messenger. They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and—heaven forbid!—he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.
Enough is enough. Together, we can put substance above cynicism and beat back these desperate attacks.
Your contribution, combined with donations from hundreds of thousands of others, has tremendous power. All our small change can add up to big change for America and the world. So please give what you can today:
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell
Like many of you, I've been with John since 2004. The same folks who are attacking him now went after him then. You know why? Because the Bush inner circle sensed what the polls tell us today—that John Edwards is the best general election candidate we've got. Last time they attacked his hair; this time it's his haircut. But it's the same sad game. And this time, we can beat it.
For all the reasons we got into this—to bring our troops back from Iraq, to solve global warming, to guarantee universal health care and to eliminate poverty—and because we believe the politics of substance and purpose must trump cynicism and personal destruction—this is a fight we must win. And together, we can.
Please give whatever you can afford to help us hit our $9 million goal by June 30th:
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell
Sincerely,
--Jonathan Prince
Deputy Campaign Manager
John Edwards for President
Monday, June 25, 2007
P.S. Last week The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions. As if there's any way to draw attention to poverty without publicity! And to make matters worse, the reporter just refused to even talk with any of the people who benefited—like any of the 200 young people who got scholarships through the College for Everyone program, or the 700 students who went to New Orleans with John to help rebuild. So we really need your help to get our message out; please, give what you can today"
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thou Protest Too Much
Anti-Catholic rhetoric is inexcusable; but making a joke about a behavior by some that is factual is not a biggoted comment. That this guy (on the right) defends all Priests from attack but excuses Imus, who targeted named people with racist insults, reveals a lot. I'm pretty sure no one comes out smelling pretty when comedians take a look at us honestly. Get used to it, right winger.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bloomberg loses the GOP
I think the implications of this are deeper than anyone realizes. I think this may be a look at our future--a growing and meaningful independent movement. It would be nice if such an independent movement radically shifted our government to a group of secularly governing, practical, technology-oriented individuals that are not funded by American corporate bigwigs and the Military Industrial Complex. In other words, hundreds of independents throw the bums out and start our Congress and Presidency over with just our Constitution to prop them up--a brand new day.
Lack of trust
I was about to send a Congressperson a query to find out way they voted to continue our occupation in Iraq. But I was so honest about what I think is really going on in this country that I became worried that people in our government might actually try to silence me somehow--so I didn't send it. That makes me sad.
Congratulations on your win to the Senate. I met you in California and was very impressed by you. However, I am perplexed as to why you voted to continue funding the Iraq occupation. Your explanation makes no rational sense to me. Did you believe that the military will solve this problem? It was my understanding that you saw Iraq as needing only a diplomatic solution, and that Bush hasn't, won't and seemingly, can't succeed at that (and maybe it's too late). That's why our only choice is to LEAVE and save our soldiers from the futile situation we've place them in on our behalf. At this time, I feel like I helped elect men who are only interested in supporting the Military Industrial situation that I believe needs to be radically overhauled, and not our No. 1 industry.
It's like he argues like a progressive, then acts like a Republican. He makes the case to oppose funding, then says, "That is why I'm voting for this." Opposite world.
We worked fairly hard to help get this PA guy elected; he makes a more convincing case for voting for funding, but expects us to place a whole lot of trust in a jr. Congressman's ability to withdraw the troops (albeit if anyone can pull it off, this guy can):
http://sestak.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/pa07_sestak/Background_iraq.shtml
Congratulations on your win to the Senate. I met you in California and was very impressed by you. However, I am perplexed as to why you voted to continue funding the Iraq occupation. Your explanation makes no rational sense to me. Did you believe that the military will solve this problem? It was my understanding that you saw Iraq as needing only a diplomatic solution, and that Bush hasn't, won't and seemingly, can't succeed at that (and maybe it's too late). That's why our only choice is to LEAVE and save our soldiers from the futile situation we've place them in on our behalf. At this time, I feel like I helped elect men who are only interested in supporting the Military Industrial situation that I believe needs to be radically overhauled, and not our No. 1 industry.
It's like he argues like a progressive, then acts like a Republican. He makes the case to oppose funding, then says, "That is why I'm voting for this." Opposite world.
We worked fairly hard to help get this PA guy elected; he makes a more convincing case for voting for funding, but expects us to place a whole lot of trust in a jr. Congressman's ability to withdraw the troops (albeit if anyone can pull it off, this guy can):
http://sestak.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/pa07_sestak/Background_iraq.shtml
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Corruption attracts buyers
Before this day I had no idea what Fred Thompson was like as a candidate, now I do. He's hired a guy, Tim Griffin, that was just fired (resigned?) because he was heavily involved in the attorney firing scandal--before that Griffin was suppressing African American MILITARY votes in Florida in a process called "caging."
Now I know your number, Fred Thompson.
Now I know your number, Fred Thompson.
Wow, the old McCain!
For a brief episode, the old John McCain rose to the occasion and gave an impassioned speech fighting the Republican machine of anti-Hispanic rhetoric. I can't find the transcript though.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The Republicans
Again, it's the outliers that are telling any truth, with their religious fantasies (this should be enormously irrelevant to governing) and anti-immigrant racism not counting. Huckaby, Trancredo and Paul the self-entitled "Champion of the Constitution."
Most stunning to me was how they CLEARLY put political/social "values" above our NATIONAL SECURITY interests. When not one single Republican supported changing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that has resulted in firing ARABIC translators, it became clear how shallow these guys are (Paul left some room for this possibility). It makes me go back to the radical idea that they really know that there is no real terror threat at all--otherwise, this is a totally IRRATIONAL position for them to take (and of course, they are not above irrationality). We need those gay Arabic interpreters and every other gay soldier in our military--how do they explain away the open English troops and other allies? They were never asked to.
So McCain believes that God created us whole and we did not evolve from apes--fascinating. It was infuriating when he told the sister of a dead soldier that this war has had a lot of mistakes, but we must continue it to keep her brother's death from being in vain. I want to call him something really nasty here but I'm working on my language/anger. Let me just say, he's one of those mistakes.
Brownback has everything to do with the mess we're in with Iraq....he's been in office the whole time ignoring the problems and being a cheerleader for Bush.
Guiliani is about to lose it. He is so deeply in fear and denial that he's resorted to telling the realists that they are in denial. He's living in opposite world, "Iraq is central to the War on Terror." Okay, so can we get a couple of Iranian and military and nuclear experts to tell us exactly how long we have before Iran develops nuclear warheads? Let's not rely on the gut check, okay, Mr. Nation Builder? He thinks our problems in Iraq are because our military's not equipped to be nation building...he'll fix that. I'm still stunned that he's supporting women to get safe abortions if they happen to live in a state where it will remain legal. Will he win a primary or is it just that all the machines are rigged nowadays? It looked like an anti-abortion protestor was rigging the buzzer when he was asked about this issue, Wolf said it was, "lightning!"
I don't think the other guys are getting anywhere, maybe Thompson, but only because of his name. And he keeps calling himself the best conservative.
Most stunning to me was how they CLEARLY put political/social "values" above our NATIONAL SECURITY interests. When not one single Republican supported changing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that has resulted in firing ARABIC translators, it became clear how shallow these guys are (Paul left some room for this possibility). It makes me go back to the radical idea that they really know that there is no real terror threat at all--otherwise, this is a totally IRRATIONAL position for them to take (and of course, they are not above irrationality). We need those gay Arabic interpreters and every other gay soldier in our military--how do they explain away the open English troops and other allies? They were never asked to.
So McCain believes that God created us whole and we did not evolve from apes--fascinating. It was infuriating when he told the sister of a dead soldier that this war has had a lot of mistakes, but we must continue it to keep her brother's death from being in vain. I want to call him something really nasty here but I'm working on my language/anger. Let me just say, he's one of those mistakes.
Brownback has everything to do with the mess we're in with Iraq....he's been in office the whole time ignoring the problems and being a cheerleader for Bush.
Guiliani is about to lose it. He is so deeply in fear and denial that he's resorted to telling the realists that they are in denial. He's living in opposite world, "Iraq is central to the War on Terror." Okay, so can we get a couple of Iranian and military and nuclear experts to tell us exactly how long we have before Iran develops nuclear warheads? Let's not rely on the gut check, okay, Mr. Nation Builder? He thinks our problems in Iraq are because our military's not equipped to be nation building...he'll fix that. I'm still stunned that he's supporting women to get safe abortions if they happen to live in a state where it will remain legal. Will he win a primary or is it just that all the machines are rigged nowadays? It looked like an anti-abortion protestor was rigging the buzzer when he was asked about this issue, Wolf said it was, "lightning!"
I don't think the other guys are getting anywhere, maybe Thompson, but only because of his name. And he keeps calling himself the best conservative.
Thinking about the debates
I hate to do this because it's such a Republican's dream, but it seems that the weak spots of our candidates, as well as the strengths, showed up the other night. I guess we're the only party that understands that EVERYONE is good and bad.
Hillary:
Rhetorical wizard, has an answer and a spin for everything. Still, she seems to be living in a high-end region of the State of Denial. It's happy there.
Obama:
Beautiful, stunning speaker. I would say earnest but he seemed so bent on having the "right" answer, an often limiting trait I recognize in myself and he compounded it by that follow-up with a memo about how we are less safe, and I worry about his sure-fire nature. I agreed when he said we should see bin Laden as a war target...but then I changed my mind when I actually considered what Kucinich had said. How much better if we did arrest the terrorist and give him the justice our enemies don't give themselves or us: let him sit and rot in jail accused and prosecuted for the murders he has committed; denying our enemies their marytr and he matyrdom.
That would not only be LOGICAL, it would be peace and justice, and a clear step away from the violent policies of war and assassination that our enemies so dearly embrace. Why are we so quick to use war? I would expect more thoughtfulness from Obama on this issue, not just "get him!"
Edwards:
Earnest and on target with the questions and policies, except when he went out to lunch on his "The World in 80 days" during the last question. Doh! Of course we need mandatory healthcare (what's Obama thinking?) and yes, I think 200K is rich enough.
Richardson:
Thoughtful and experienced. I think he did great in this debate except for the Beijing Olympics comment...too Carterish, ouch!! But he's principled and honest! Yes! We should care about Africa! Been there, done that, changed the world, vote for me.
Kucinich:
Right on! He's amazing. Every idea he has could save the world! He's up and ready! He's the most optimistic guy I know! I don't have one negative thing to say. It drives me crazy that the press just eliminates his candidacy. He's got serious fans!
Dodd:
More fun to watch than I ever dreamed. He is classic liberalism defined. What is it about him that keeps him down? His hair? That sense of northeastern intellect? Been there, done that, but don't have much recognition for anything?
My favorites now:
Edwards
Kucinich/Richardson(it's VERY interesting that he's running against Hillary)
Obama
Tonight we wait for the fear-mongering. Do you think we'll flesh out the anti-evolution ideas? Not!
Hillary:
Rhetorical wizard, has an answer and a spin for everything. Still, she seems to be living in a high-end region of the State of Denial. It's happy there.
Obama:
Beautiful, stunning speaker. I would say earnest but he seemed so bent on having the "right" answer, an often limiting trait I recognize in myself and he compounded it by that follow-up with a memo about how we are less safe, and I worry about his sure-fire nature. I agreed when he said we should see bin Laden as a war target...but then I changed my mind when I actually considered what Kucinich had said. How much better if we did arrest the terrorist and give him the justice our enemies don't give themselves or us: let him sit and rot in jail accused and prosecuted for the murders he has committed; denying our enemies their marytr and he matyrdom.
That would not only be LOGICAL, it would be peace and justice, and a clear step away from the violent policies of war and assassination that our enemies so dearly embrace. Why are we so quick to use war? I would expect more thoughtfulness from Obama on this issue, not just "get him!"
Edwards:
Earnest and on target with the questions and policies, except when he went out to lunch on his "The World in 80 days" during the last question. Doh! Of course we need mandatory healthcare (what's Obama thinking?) and yes, I think 200K is rich enough.
Richardson:
Thoughtful and experienced. I think he did great in this debate except for the Beijing Olympics comment...too Carterish, ouch!! But he's principled and honest! Yes! We should care about Africa! Been there, done that, changed the world, vote for me.
Kucinich:
Right on! He's amazing. Every idea he has could save the world! He's up and ready! He's the most optimistic guy I know! I don't have one negative thing to say. It drives me crazy that the press just eliminates his candidacy. He's got serious fans!
Dodd:
More fun to watch than I ever dreamed. He is classic liberalism defined. What is it about him that keeps him down? His hair? That sense of northeastern intellect? Been there, done that, but don't have much recognition for anything?
My favorites now:
Edwards
Kucinich/Richardson(it's VERY interesting that he's running against Hillary)
Obama
Tonight we wait for the fear-mongering. Do you think we'll flesh out the anti-evolution ideas? Not!
Monday, June 04, 2007
Which comes first, terror or the terrorist?
Is there one shred of evidence that there were conversations with any other terrorist or is this all according to the criminal, federal "informant?"
Well, according to this article and the "informant" there was video evidence of JFK targets, but it looks to me like this was turned over to a "new contact" in Trinidad right before the feds busted the crazy bearded Brooklyn guy in NEW YORK.
So do we have evidence of the plans or not?
Give me a break.
Update: Perhaps they DO have the videos--I found some International News: BBC
Well, according to this article and the "informant" there was video evidence of JFK targets, but it looks to me like this was turned over to a "new contact" in Trinidad right before the feds busted the crazy bearded Brooklyn guy in NEW YORK.
So do we have evidence of the plans or not?
Give me a break.
Update: Perhaps they DO have the videos--I found some International News: BBC
Don't believe your own eyes
Everyone is talking about the JFK "plot" as if it is real. Hillary says something baffling, "Clinton said, 'I take all of these plots seriously, unless proven otherwise. There's no reason to be second-guessing.'"
WHAT? NO REASON?? How about an administration BENT on manipulating every shred of "evidence" so that it fits their agenda, on their time schedule?!
I noticed this:
"When the JFK plot was first discovered in January 2006, the NYPD's counterterrorism division ran a mile-by-mile survey of the pipeline. The NYPD also increased surveillance using helicopters and harbor boats."
2006
2006??? Then why did this story hit right before a Democratic debate and just happen to be the primary issue that that WOLFIE wanted answered?
The only "evidence" I've yet to read about in the Press or hear on TV is the following:
"He [the terror suspect] can be heard on the tapes [produced by a federal informant, described below] speaking of his hate and murderous urges during the time he worked as a cargo handler at Kennedy Airport.
"These things used to come into my brain - well, I could blow this place up," he was recorded saying. "I would sit and see a plane taxiing up the runway. And I would say, if I could get a rocket, then I could do a hit."
He apparently came in contact with people from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago who harbored that same murderous hate for America. He is alleged to have already been hatching a plot when he encountered a man who had been working as a government informant since 2004 in an effort to get a reduced sentence on a pair of drug trafficking cases [and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY].
The informant worked his way into the midst of the conspirators and reported that they intended to explode a fuel line that runs 40 miles from New Jersey through Staten Island and Brooklyn to JFK Airport. Defreitas is quoted in the criminal complaint as saying the plot would destroy "the whole of Kennedy" along with nearly everyone there and part of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Alleged plot
Emphasis added.
I watched the Today show this morning, NBC's answer to Fox News, and they had the "expert" Steve Emmerson on the show spouting on about how much some Muslims hate us. He had far more to say about hate than any facts about this case...he said something about tapes and VIDEO showing compelling evidence that this was a real threat (I have yet to find any other account of video evidence against the defendent). His supporters have private interests, not educational ones.
I know I shouldn't be but I am STUNNED that the press has yet to grow any SKEPTICISM after the wake of Iraq and the Bill Moyer's special.
The crazy bearded guy in a Brooklyn court room has not been found guilty yet, and nearly everybody's accepting that his plot had legs. Let's start asking more questions and not accepting non-academic and independent researchers as experts on anything. We might as well ask historical novelists for help and guidance in this war.
I've got a question for Hillary, "Why are you drinking the diet pepsi?"
WHAT? NO REASON?? How about an administration BENT on manipulating every shred of "evidence" so that it fits their agenda, on their time schedule?!
I noticed this:
"When the JFK plot was first discovered in January 2006, the NYPD's counterterrorism division ran a mile-by-mile survey of the pipeline. The NYPD also increased surveillance using helicopters and harbor boats."
2006
2006??? Then why did this story hit right before a Democratic debate and just happen to be the primary issue that that WOLFIE wanted answered?
The only "evidence" I've yet to read about in the Press or hear on TV is the following:
"He [the terror suspect] can be heard on the tapes [produced by a federal informant, described below] speaking of his hate and murderous urges during the time he worked as a cargo handler at Kennedy Airport.
"These things used to come into my brain - well, I could blow this place up," he was recorded saying. "I would sit and see a plane taxiing up the runway. And I would say, if I could get a rocket, then I could do a hit."
He apparently came in contact with people from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago who harbored that same murderous hate for America. He is alleged to have already been hatching a plot when he encountered a man who had been working as a government informant since 2004 in an effort to get a reduced sentence on a pair of drug trafficking cases [and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY].
The informant worked his way into the midst of the conspirators and reported that they intended to explode a fuel line that runs 40 miles from New Jersey through Staten Island and Brooklyn to JFK Airport. Defreitas is quoted in the criminal complaint as saying the plot would destroy "the whole of Kennedy" along with nearly everyone there and part of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Alleged plot
Emphasis added.
I watched the Today show this morning, NBC's answer to Fox News, and they had the "expert" Steve Emmerson on the show spouting on about how much some Muslims hate us. He had far more to say about hate than any facts about this case...he said something about tapes and VIDEO showing compelling evidence that this was a real threat (I have yet to find any other account of video evidence against the defendent). His supporters have private interests, not educational ones.
I know I shouldn't be but I am STUNNED that the press has yet to grow any SKEPTICISM after the wake of Iraq and the Bill Moyer's special.
The crazy bearded guy in a Brooklyn court room has not been found guilty yet, and nearly everybody's accepting that his plot had legs. Let's start asking more questions and not accepting non-academic and independent researchers as experts on anything. We might as well ask historical novelists for help and guidance in this war.
I've got a question for Hillary, "Why are you drinking the diet pepsi?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)