It is policy on this board that no posts be deleted. All you can do is edit it to remove your own content, as has been done.
As one who was involved in the demonstrations and protests for equality in the 60's I am very happy today, to see this culmination of events, encouraged that this trend will continue.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
Today, we inaugurate an African-American as President of these United States. On this day, let us set aside petty political differences and rejoice at the progress this country has made ...
And I look forward to more progress, not just in America, but in the world.
Bertot still speaks in the Bush vernacular of getting even, rather than being fair, and whether his complaint is perceived or real, this is what was wrong with the Bush misadministration. On this type of thinking, Obama says you will be judged on what you can build, not what you can destroy.
The years of exclusionism based on pettiness are over in our government, but there are people that still need to learn. Yes there is still a ways to go to overcome bias and bigotry, and to reduce the need to push back against intolerance whenever it raises it's ugly little head.
Yes I am proud of this man that stands up for America, willing to lead it forward in hard times.
I am sure we can find stupid, racist people on both sides of the political divide. I have talked to quite a few pro-McCain people who had no clue what McCain stood for and who only voted for him because he is white.
Yes, it is amazing how much false information is put out in politics and how many people swallow some without even thinking about it. Interesting that most of it is so emotional.
We also see false issues made out of things like wearing a flag pin, and whether a junior senator has "accomplished" anything.
One thing he accomplished that to me is important is that he saw through the false information of the bush administration and voted against invading Iraq.
That level judgment, imho, is more important than making little laws about bridges in alaska, especially when we are talking about someone who will make that kind of decision. This is where I chose Barak over Hillary.
I voted for Barak in the primary here because I thought he had the judgment necessary to be president, something sorely lacking in the white house for the last 8 years.
Yes, I worried about bias and the racist intolerance seen in those videos, and still am - I remember Kennedy, saw him speak, know where I was when he was killed - but the same also applies to Hillary, not just the sexist misogynists, but the bumper-sticker mentality people and the history of clinton hating republicans. I've also lived in the south and seen first hand the thin veneer of pretend tolerance over old prejudice.
But I decided that I could not let my concerns about other people's racism color my choice.
Barak also said he would close Gitmo, an issue that is critical to regaining America's heart and soul.
Barak also said he would end the war in Iraq, an issue that is critical to the US regaining credibility in world politics.
These are issues of character and judgment that are critical to the office of president.
Then there is the issue of the economy. What we saw was the failure of the economy from the bottom up. The absolute and complete refutation of the false republican economic "theory" of trickle down economics. We've seen the Botch Administration throw more money at the top of the economy, clueless as usual, and we see that this has accomplished nothing.
Where McCain stood on all these issues was, in my opinion, on the wrong side. I've also seen him equivocate on his earlier positions, and I lost respect for him.
I've seen the election process skip over good people and pick some that are less, imho, suited for the task of president, but this time I think it worked.
I've seen the "oh poor me" criticism that it is all fakery a popularity cult and the silly comparisons (Gandhi is bad?), but what I see is a lot of recognition of the qualities of a good leader.
And this day I am proud to call Mr Obama President.
When the Gitmo terrorist's eventually are released by BO, I hope they make good neighbors if one like the one who's now Ben Laden's right hand terrorist becomes your neighbor?
Those are buzzwords, Buz.
Curiously, I had a neighbor back in Michigan that was muslim, who fled from Bosnia with wife and kids, from Slobodan Miloevi and the "ethnic cleansing" hooligans. He used to be a successful lawyer, about to retire, but now he works nights in a factory, with a bad back, yet he has no complaints. He is happy to be in America because of what Clinton and the US had done. He was also the kindest man in the neighborhood, always willing to help or lend things.
I've also had neighbors that were the meanest in the neighborhood, always complaining, never helpful. Christians.
The problem Buz, is that not all the people put in Gitmo were terrorists. Many were sold for rewards because they just happened to be in the wrong place. No attempt was made to actually prove that they were terrorists. No court of law has been presented the evidence that would tell if they are terrorists - and I have to conclude that this is because the evidence does not exist.
The reason I conclude this is three-fold:
(1) the Botch misAdministration could have used the propaganda value of convicting a terrorist of terrorism to parade to the world in general and skeptical Americans in specific. Not one such case exists.
(2) they resorted to torture to try to fabricate evidence for terrorism, evidence that they would not need if they had other evidence.
(3) the Botch misAdministration had the opportunity to show a conservative dominated Supreme Court that they had sufficient cause to detain these people without trial to preserve the security of the country, and the conservative dominated Supreme Court was singularly unimpressed, and demanded that the prisoners get proper justice.
Not one of these reasons is consistent with having reason to keep these people, these human beings, caged like dogs, beaten and tortured.
So were they real bonafide bloodsucking bomb-their-mothers terrorists when they were incarcerated? The evidence says no.
Were they all fighting against the US invasions? Maybe some, perhaps to defend their homes.
Are they dangerous now? Possibly. They may also be very angry about being mistreated.
Are there some that we should be worried about? Likely, but without evidence, evidence sufficient to get a conviction in a court of law, where they get their day in court to answer to the charges that can be brought against them, that is not enough reason to subvert the principles of justice.
But notice please, that Obama is not talking about a blanket release of all the prisoners, what he is talking about is applying the rules of justice to these cases, to provide them with their day in court to answer to the charges that can be brought against them, and to find a place for them if they are convicted, and a country willing to take them if they are not convicted.
The likelihood of one becoming my neighbor is very very very slim, but if this comes to be, then I will welcome him to America, apologize for the criminal behavior of the Botch misAdministration, and express hope that he will find America to be a better experience than either Gitmo or Afghanistan\Iraq wherever he originally came from.
One thing is clear though, the Botch misAdministration has made more terrorists than the number of people kept in Gitmo, and I would worry a LOT more about those people than the ones in Gitmo.
In conclusion, I will admit to being Conservative and advocating Conservative values. For the skull scratchers out there, this is my definition of Conservative.
quote:Main Entry: con·ser·va·tive 1: preservative 2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized: of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative 3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners 4: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism
I will assume you mean conservative(3a) and conservative(2a), rather than the oxymoronic "progressive conservative" or the idiotic "neo-conservative" ... exemplified by our idiotic past (thank god its over) president.
The bearing title of withstanding cultural values is to be 'Liberal'. As follows;
For parallel consistency I'll assume you mean liberal(5) and liberal(6a).
Note that liberal does not need to be modified to be "progressive" and that by this definition a "progressive conservative" or a "neo-conservative" is really a liberal that is scared to use the term (and certainly one cannot accuse the Botch misAdministration of being fiscally conservative).
Based on these definitions, I will also note that the Founding Fathers of this country were liberals. They broke with the traditional, conservative, authoritarian governing of the King of England, while their opponents, the Tories, were the conservatives.
Furthermore, I'll note that by these definitions the Constitution of the United States of America is a liberal doctrine: it is "broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms" and is based on ideals of freedom, equality, truth, justice and a form of government designed to secure these objectives.
Or adhering to choice christian/traditional values and morality.... The most important thing is to conserve and advocate christian, American culture and traditions.
It is only important to conservatives, therefore it cannot be "most important" ...
You are also conflating conserve with conservative. It is a liberal American cultural policy to conserve large tracts of land for future generations. But that is not what you mean by conservative.
Next the question is which values come first, traditional Christian values (we'll leave the discussion of "morality" for later) or the liberal American values of freedom, equality, justice and a form of government designed to secure these objectives. Are you a patriot of Christian values and a traitor to American values or are you a patriot of American values and a traitor to Christian values when it comes down to making a choice.
Obviously, I consider these values "normal".
Obviously. But then, everyone considers their values "normal" even convicted felons. The question of what is "normal" within a society is often a question of what is average (the "normal distribution") in that society, and the average American value is not conservative christian. Conservative Christians are a minority in the minority party. When you look at the statistics and talk to the conservative christians you find out that somewhere around 80% of american christians are liberal in their views on religion and solidly in favor of the liberal values of freedom, equality, truth, justice and a form of government designed to secure these objectives. It is rather humorous to watch conservative christians claim that this is a christian nation because 70 to 80% of americans are christian, and then tell liberal christians that they are not true christians because they don't believe the bible is literal history.
Another way to look at "normal" is with the definition used in psychology, and maintaining delusionary beliefs is not "normal"
The belief that the earth is young (6000 years was it?) is not rational when it is contradicted by mountains of evidence.
The normality of said principle is that which contains elemental nostalgia/comforts for relational individual (I.E. mum's and pop's).
Now you are equivocating on the word "normal" - it is normal for all people to have parents. It is not normal for all parents to provide a comforting environment for children, and a comforting environment for children has nothing to do with liberal or conservative values of the family.
On the other hand, non relational cultural aspects and those that advocate "change" and other attacks on the values of such a culture, minding values of said culture are not limited to sex, ethnicity, age, disability, veteran status or favorite foods, is contemptible and dissuasive.
Except that they are based on the now traditional American values of freedom, equality, truth, justice and a form of government designed to secure these objectives established by the liberal Founding Fathers.
If you think that traditional conservative Christian values trump these American values then you are not patriotic to those American values.
So, for conservatives, being too wayward from values and traditions of said culture, is Liberal practice, not regulating to conservative values. As well for Liberals, Conservative practice is to differ from Liberal mentality, thanks.
Yes, liberals move forward the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States to form of government designed to secure these objective of freedom, equality, truth, justice for all.
OBAMA = BAD
You are free to have your opinion, thanks to the liberal doctrine of the Constitution of the United States.
I am also free to have my opinion be diametrically opposed to it because of the same liberal doctrine of the Constitution of the United States.
So on this day, I am proud of the American values embedded in the Constitution of the United States, I am proud to hold these values as sacrosanct, I am proud to see a president hold these American values sacrosanct.
Obama has already done more good in the world than Shrubbia could scrape together in his last (may the saints preserve us) address from 8 years of the Botch misAdministration.
And that makes me proud to have supported his election.
So now, my Damned tax dollars go to paying for ...
Government services that, amazingly, allow you to make money to pay for taxes.
Once in government hands IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY - this is the biggest lies of the republican party, and the basis of a lot of false policies from the republicans.
When you buy a service from a company, once that money is in their hands IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY, and they can use it to fund anything they want to.
You need to pay for the government in order to make the money you make.
If you don't think this is true, try earning money without benefit an a single government service.
You can't.
So taxes are the way you pay for that service provided.
As well as other stupid pointless things the government does.
If you have suggestions for government programs that are not working, why not suggest a fix to Obama - he said that was one of his concerns.
Not only is abortion wrong, it's sick.
There are threads to talk about abortion if you want to, but you will be expected to have a rational reason to apply your beliefs to other people, rather than just an emotional knee-jerk response. Of course I would also expect you to support birth control and sex education so that the need for abortions are reduced.
I also expect you to be equally opposed to interfering with natural conception as done by birth clinics to provide children to people who cannot conceive naturally, especially when the genes come from someone else.
Hey Buz, still having trouble with those conspiracy theories I see.
What he did was to essentially end the Bush declared War on Terror via the CIA, etc and implemented a process of negotiating a peas with the terrorists which is pie in the sky.
quote:President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. prison camp for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and banned intelligence agencies from using the harshest interrogation techniques.
The president also formed an interagency task force to recommend options for the detention and questioning of enemy combatants, and he ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to close any secret prisons that may still be operating. The orders make good on Obama’s campaign promises and reflect his determination to quickly reshape U.S. policy in the war against terrorism.
Reshape U.S. policy in the war against terrorism is not ending it.
quote:“The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism,” Obama said after signing the orders, “and we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”
The only difference is that he is going to do so legally, in a manner consistent with US values and ideals, rather than by ignoring the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and many treaties signed by the US for treatment of prisoners.
If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with Constitution, the Geneva Convention and many treaties signed by the US for treatment of prisoners, and not with Obama.
You also need to explain how the Botch misAdministration's sacrificing of American ideals and ignoring the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and many treaties signed by the US for treatment of prisoners is a good thing.
quote:Obama signed executive orders that commanded the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, outlawed aggressive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding on suspected terrorists and shut down secret CIA prisons.
He then sped to the State Department to watch as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dispatched two high-profile envoys to trouble spots, former Sen. George Mitchell to the Middle East and former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obama said that his actions would make Americans safer, restore a tradition of honoring the rights even of suspected terrorists to be treated humanely and start winning back respect overseas.
"It is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world," he added. "We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms."
That doesn't sound like ending it either, nor does it sound like seeking a peace settlement with terrorists.
quote:We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort ” even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
That also does not look like backing down from fighting terrorists, rather it looks like focusing on the actual terrorists rather than on Iraq.
The following article by Dana Priest explains how the CIA has essentially been prohibited from progressing with the necessary intelligence operatives needful to wage and win the War On Terror.
Curiously all he has done is end the illegal procedures, he has not ordered the CIA to "stand down" or any other misrepresentation of his policy.
Will you continue to believe fearmongering hype or reality? Time will tell, but in the meantime stay away from the acid man.
1. No enemy nation on earth has been treated their prisoners as civilly as America treats our prisoners and that includes the terrorist slippery stealth fanatics who we are dealing with in the current unique War on Terror.
Until the Botch misAdministration decided to chuck civilized and moral behavior and become as bad as the terrorists.
2. America, and in fact, the world at large has never in history faced such a formidible stealth enemy who's own lives and the lives of everyone else has no value in their thinking.
Whose existence depends on the repression, marginalization and isolation of people.
3. This enemy's target is not the military perse. It is the hapless, defenseless innocent men, women and children citizens going about their business in the offices, the markets, the schools and the hospitals.
By this definition troops in Iraq are terrorists, when they are attacking civilians.
4. Kindly treatment is totally ineffective in intelligence operations necessary to seek out the cells and operatives of such an enemy.
Information coerced by torture does not produce useful information.
5. No treatment at Gitmo has been life threatening or designed to permanently maim the prisoners.
Curiously prisoners have been injured and killed.
6. The CIA's priority, as it should be has been America's survival first and foremost.
Their purpose is to provide information for the President and the Pentagon to use, and this only within the bounds of the constitution and international law, or they are not defending "America" (but you likely don't get that distinction, give the number of times it has been pointed out).
Economists of all stripes acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy.
The economy is the movement of value between people. Having 3 billion millionaires that don't spend money is not an economy, 1 person spending a buck to buy something from someone else is.
This is why the "trickle-down" theory is false, and why it resulted in the failure of the economy ... from the bottom up.
™ Version 4.2
