Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bustie Goes To Washingon
The BUST Lounge > Forums > As the World Turns
so i'm starting a political thread, and i should start by eating some crow. there were some busties who said a political thread following obama's election. i was one-- perhaps the main person who poo-poo'd it. i have strong opinions, as i'm sure most people round here know, but i was wrong. i think with the advent of polling sites, the voting site can stand on it's own, and it's issues are quite specific. the news site can cover other things like the recent killing of dr. tiller, and more local issues. having a thread about politics, pundits, and the way things work in this country could work....or not. the lounge has gotten a bit apolitical in the last few years, with a few exceptions (the election debates were wonderful), which is fine. i know that things ebb and flow, but this is, i hope an opportunity to change that.

for myself, i am going to try to be do you say...asshole-ish... in sharing my opinions, and asking more questions. so if you see me being too belligerent drop me a pm. i'll try to ask questions instead of my usual habit of asserting what i think is going on.


listening to reports on iran right now i came across this from huffington post, which is a great source on what is going on over there:
11:56 AM ET -- Are U.S. officials being too quiet? I wanted to reexamine this question in light of some new comments today. First, from Spencer Ackerman:

Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said he has a hard time taking a strong stance one way or the other about the Berman-Pence Iran resolution currently being debated on the House floor. But it's wading awfully close into a "political act" for his taste "The text is not objectionable," Ghaemi told me. "But it will be seen as a political act" by the Iranian regime.

Second, via Andrew, comments by Amir Fakhravar, who has been "jailed and tortured in Iran for advocating democracy and speaking out against the Iranian government" and remains in touch with reformers:

"Right now, (Obama) could say, 'America stands for freedom and democracy, and as a United States president, I want to stand behind all of the freedom fighters in the world that are fighting peacefully to have democracy and freedom,'" Fakhravar said. "That's the American Dream. I don't know why he didn't say that. He said, 'this is none of our business.'"

The contrary argument, of course, is that if Obama or Congress speak out more aggressively, it will endanger the reformists in Iran and give ammunition to Khamenei and his allies.

Khamenei's speech today pushed me to reexamine this line of thinking. He didn't need an incendiary line from Obama to stir up anti-U.S. sentiments -- he just made one up. "It was said on behalf of the U.S. President that he was waiting for a day that people came out to streets," he claimed.

It seems my basic question is: Can Obama afford to be slightly more forward leaning on human rights concerns given that Khamenei's government is willing to fabricate statements to advance his own agenda?

interesting article about how protesters have been getting proactive. there is, according to one source, a trend of basiji hunting. for those not paying attention, basiji are basically government hired thugs. they are given weapons and told to create mayhem, they are believed to be behind some of the killings of protesters. they mingle in the crowds of protesters, and try to agitate the crowds, run rampant at night causing explosions and vandalism. they have been "arresting" protesters, which amounts to making them disappear. there have been untold accounts of husbands and teenagers vanishing. the government provides no names. no information.

to counter that the passive, peaceful protesters have taken to a different tactic. hunting the hunters before they get a chance to hurt anyone. but this is the part i found interesting in the basiji hunting article:
These are not the students in the dorms, they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on.
Queen Bull
#1 Props on the political thread. I think its a super idea, especially given teh general importance of this particular administration in general.

#2 I just read that article that you posted about basiji hunting. I think that while it is a bit depressing that there even are basiji in the first place, ( i have a huge bleeding heart for the middle eastern population in general because of all the shit that seems to have been dumped on them, specifically the innocents), BUT that being said, I think it is a wonderful stride that the community youth is fighting back in the form of a militia, because i have always felt that a political reformation cannot happen unless the public is willing to take it from the government. I think that regardless this is a large step towards a healthy independence for Iran. I find it especially moving that young women are doing this, because it is time that the so-called " weaker sex" *scoff* took some action in that area of the world, and i hope that it can be an inspiring example to women all over the world.

sorry if any of that didnt make sense or was an opinion about something irrelevant in the situation. ha. i havent done much research on the subject. Like i said though, props on the thread, ill try and add my two cents regularly. smile.gif
oh it made plenty of sense, QB. good to see you back around. i was wondering what happened to you!

yeah i am wondering/scared about what tomorrow will bring for the iranians. there was a guy on rachel maddow earlier in the week who was talking about how martyrdom is kind of an engine for change in that country. he surmised that the day of mourning would lead to bloodshed, and that would lead to more days of mourning, and more bloodshed, as it had been for the last iranian revolution. but there was no crackdown yesterday, but i fear there will be some tomorrow. and it begins. i think most of the world is holding it's breath, but at the same time i am so amazingly proud of them. i've posted about how the WTO protests changed the way i thought about things. there really is nothing as beautiful as a city that has been taken over peacefully by it's citizens. there were not nearly as many people in seattle, i can only imagine the euphoria that would fill the air to see a sea of people stretching for miles in either direction. it's beautiful. i wish that their supreme leader would have taken another path. after all, the people only wanted another vote. a simple request. but in refusing, he ensured that things would never be the same in his country. the people were satisfied with the control they were given:their vote, but if that is counterfeit, then they have nothing. the next presidential vote will be meaningless. they will not even have the illusion of that small portion of freedom. their back is to the wall. i am full of dread.

now, for them, it is all or nothing.
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jun 19 2009, 11:05 AM) *
there were some busties who said a political thread following obama's election. i was one-- perhaps the main person who poo-poo'd it.

Yes, you did. I still got love for ya. Moonbeams and sunshine! wink.gif

Ok. I will make a more intelligent response after I've read the previous posts. Thanks for starting this thread, GT.
Yes, you did.

another day, another serving of crow. it's a constant diet for me.
and my favorite, humble pie for dessert.
I guess I was hoping more Busties would be posting in here with the news of Iran.

I actually find this type of uprising simultaneously exhilarating and scary as an observer. I tend to take on the type of role of "social justice" in a system when I feel there is a level of unfairness. Unfortunately, when you work in a conservative environment, to be a woman, to be a woman of color, just speaking up alone brings immediate interpretations of myself as an aggressor, defiant, or guarded. Yes, I've been told that to my face. Fortunately for me, I come from a city of hot heads and a city known of unrest (Democratic Convention of '68 and every day City Hall dealings). I am definitely a believer that systems need to be shaken down some times in order for a rebirth and transformation to take place.

So, I am so proud of the women and young people in Iran willing to risk their lives to be heard and protest injustice. I think as women, if we are willing and wanting to be treated equal, then we are willing to risk our lives. I think what is occurring in Iran not only challenges the notion of the feminine being sacred and needing protection, but also, to what extent are men willing to speak up on the behalf of others who are vulnerable (such as women).

GT, it is sad that when people look to their leaders for leadership, how the decisions which are made can kill off people's hope of democracy. I think we struggle with the notion of leadership in the States. I think it is part of the reason why so much Hope was instilled with our current president, Pres. Obama. We've been wanting change for some time, but, how much change can happen. To what extent, does the machine eventually condition, even those who promise change, the act of compromise and selling out of ideals? I think, at my age, both personally and professionally, I'm struggling with this type of compromise. It pisses me off. I guess I'm losing my own illusion of what it means to be a leader because eventually there are everyday decisions and pressures we are not aware of. I don't know how this links up with Iran's current situation, but, they are ideas that have been running in my head. It is sad that Iran's gov't is not willing to be reception to its people. The irrational belief that killing its own people off will keep their system copesetic is delusional at best.

The whole situation reminds me of the election for Bush's second term. We handle things in the US in a very Julius Ceasar ending. We like to have our leaders smiling and telling us every thing will be ok. If we are not affected, then we think things are fine. Unfortunately, the American public rather turn a blind eye to our own type of illegal behavior. We just do it more covertly and stab you in the back. I find myself thinking about what has changed from the rebellion of the 60s (both socially and psychologically) to the present day where we need our leaders to be safe and socially acceptable. I guess I find myself missing that type of radical, inspiring behavior in leadership. So, I guess that is why I'm happy to see the people of Iran continuing to fight for their rights. I hope the American public can do the same in addition to voting in various elections.

So, to make my post even longer, I thought I would post one of my favorite lines from the American President which I thought accurately captured the relationship between Americans, politics, and the media.

Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.
President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...
Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jun 20 2009, 12:48 AM) *
another day, another serving of crow. it's a constant diet for me.
and my favorite, humble pie for dessert.

Don't worry, I feed the pie to you myself. I know you like to be fed. wink.gif
I haven't posted about the situation in Iran b/c, for the most part, I didn't feel that I knew enough about what was going on there. However, I was listening to BBC News on NPR last night and they mentioned the story of Neda. All the American news I watch (almost all just local Chicago news; cable news makes me crazy) haven't brought it up at all. They will mention that "_____ number of people have died in the protests," and leave it at that.

As for Obama's reaction, while I see his point that he doesn't want the world to view this as an American lead revolution, I think he needs to say something more than what he has said. Of course, as I don't believe the situation will change and I think that Amadenijad will still be in office when the dust settles, I am not sure that I am ready for Iran to be a stronger enemy than they already are.

In local news (Chicago), there is a huge rally pulling together in the state capital to protest budget cuts. The governor has said that either state income tax is raised by 50% (about $14-$20 per pay check) or human services are cut by 50%-75%. Everyone I work with is flipping out at the moment, myself included, even though I am quitting my job at the end of this week. It is scary and disheartening. sad.gif
kitten feel free to ask questions here. i love trying to dig and research stuff, so if you are just curious, post.

some of the best coverage, actually has been on cnn, although they need to get rid of their cyberboner. they spend entirely too much time oooooing and aaaaaahing over technology. "twitter is SO amazing! we got that 10 SECONDS AGO!!!!!!" uh... ok. but shouldn't the story be the point? that said, between their cooing, they covered most of the angles, although they only lightly touched upon america's history with iran, which is a crucial angle, in understanding why republican grandstanding is exactly the WRONG thing to do, and could get people killed. personally, i don't get why obama or any other official needs to say anything? it strikes me as the zenith of american vanity, arrogance and egotism, as if they need our help at all. bad news america:IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. they don't need or want our support verbal or otherwise. our endorsement of their protests is the kiss of death, and any words we say only hurt their cause, and their people. this is where history is sooooo very important and has been the thing missing in american coverage. we have manipulated and fucked with iranians and thwarted their self-determination since that country's inception*. they have been fighting, in many ways, for freedom from american manipulation just as much as anything else. keith olberman did a quick primmer on iran/american history that lasted less than three minutes, touching on all the major points neglected by the 24/7 news channels.

all and all, i don't know if you could say that iran will emerge a stronger enemy when the dust settles, kitten, even if amadenijad does remain in power. to my mind, the seeds have been planted, and the social memory is much deeper and longer in the middle east than it is here. people will not forget a couple of things: 1)martyrs, their friends and family who have died, 2) people controlling the streets, and the pre-election freedom, 3)relatives who have been jailed and injured. 4)their vote was stolen. these things are poison to any regime, although it may take some time. but the people in iran have wanted nothing but their own freedom, and have been fighting for it for nearly 100 years. that's not going to stop even if those in power win temporarily.

for me there are a couple of things i'm looking for that would mean a real change: a strike among the oil workers, defection of top military people, clerics taking and even tougher stand for the rebellion*. these things could signal a real turn of events and iran's course.

*the brief history of american in envolvement in iranian affairs i mentioned aired on countdown with keith olberman can be found on nico pitney's blog about the iranian protests (and the best resource on it i have found), at huff/post. it is the embedded video post on tuesday 10:38 AM ET

here is a short article about uk and the shaw, but the installation of the shaw was, in the main, and american endeavor. this article only briefly goes into details, and is mostly about 1953. american (and uk) involvement/meddling goes back further tho. i'll see if i can find a more detailed timeline of anglo/iranian involvement.

**there is a little movement on this front: according to the huff/post blog, 40 clerics, supporters of rafsanjani, have signed a letter calling for annulment of the last election.

ETA: nokia and siemens assisted in creating the architecture that iran uses to not only censor, track it's citizen's communications, but they can also manipulate them as well.

cnn did a great segment on women at the forefront of the iraq protests on AC360 (with campbell brown). i'd link but they haven't posted it. but here is what they do have. i usually like msnbc, but cnn is freaking phenominal. they have some really great interviews with people who are thoughtful, and shed light on a lot of cultural details that really illuminate things. i've found myself moved to tears by a few of the interviews.

my computer is running super slow so i'll post more later.
So, he's upset that Obama spoke up. Weird.

kittenb, the news of cutbacks or loss of funding for mental health services and people with disabilities is just sickening for Illinois. The state has slowly been screwing their social service programs for some time. I really wonder if the politicians think about where all of these people will go.

ETA: GT, after reading your post, I've needed to refresh my memory about the tension between Iran and the US. I found this background through wiki. I remember hearing alot of Iran and the US during my childhood. Part of this conflict between the Carter administration that some believed led to Reagan being elected in the 80s.
that's a good link, star thank you.

i'm curious as to how people feel about the mark sanford scandal.

personally i think many republicans in his position deserve their comeuppance, but i find the reading of his emails... well.... tasteless.
As an Illinois resident I might be too used to mocking governors but I find the whole Sandford thing hilarious and weird, as if it should be some paperback novel.
Not sure if anyone is following the Sontomayor's hearings for Supreme Court approval. But, I was really disgusted by the use of 'Splainin' by Sen Tom Coburn. I don't find it funny.
The Sanford thing is back in the news again because they're doing more investigating into his travel expenses. Nothing like charging the taxpayers for first class plane tickets so you can visit your mistress while going on and on about how government has to be more fiscally responsible.
Well, you know how it is with politicians: Do as I say, not as I do.
thing that always kills me is it's the republicans pulling that shit. the ones that are supposed to be all about governmental restraint. they moralize up and down but they are the worst perpetrators.

another thing that kills me is how they always talk about how corrupt gov't is, and they out do the dems in corruption too. seriously, i was listening to peggy noonan bloviate today about how she's scared of a medical plan because of the how much we're spending right now, but when bush was giving out money to cronies hand over fist she was mum. then she spouts what is my biggest pet peeve when talking about the medical revamp: do we really want a beurocrat in charge of managing people's health, and has government shown a good record of managing anything?

1)most healthcare plans have a bean counter managing people's healthcare trying to maximize their profits. that's not working since the country is awash with stories of people needing treatment and being denied.
2)government manages things just fine when a dem is in office since they actually try to make gov't work instead of dismantling it, and when it fails blaming the system for things they had control over. i have no love for dems, but atleast they make a good faith effort instead of cutting funding for everything and screaming when those same agencies fail. fema anyone?
I'd like to know what all of your views are on the health care bill, if y'all don't mind.
I was just about to ask the same thing of Busties, jsmith.

As a Canadian, I'd like to know what you all think. It's true, our system is far from perfect but I can't imagine going into the emergency room and having to pay for the visit.

I know that a lot of people here do die waiting for care and it's a huge problem. But at the same time, don't Americans also get denied treatments for things especially if their insurance says that it was a pre-existing condition?

That reminds me of another thing. Right now I'm not covered so the only thing I have to pay for is medication, which really sucks. But I remember a few years ago when my parents were changing their coverage and the form also asked about pre-existing conditions (my mom has a lot of health issues) because then they wouldn't cover the medication for those prescriptions.

Also, is Obama pushing for a two-tier system or what? And why are Americans so freakin afraid of socialism?!
Sunshine, why don't you just set. permanently. You suck.
Oo, and it has already been deactivated. Excellent work, mods!
Looks like that sun has set. Thank you modsquad.
QUOTE(candycane_girl @ Jul 22 2009, 08:01 PM) *
I was just about to ask the same thing of Busties, jsmith.

As a Canadian, I'd like to know what you all think. It's true, our system is far from perfect but I can't imagine going into the emergency room and having to pay for the visit.

I know that a lot of people here do die waiting for care and it's a huge problem. But at the same time, don't Americans also get denied treatments for things especially if their insurance says that it was a pre-existing condition?

That reminds me of another thing. Right now I'm not covered so the only thing I have to pay for is medication, which really sucks. But I remember a few years ago when my parents were changing their coverage and the form also asked about pre-existing conditions (my mom has a lot of health issues) because then they wouldn't cover the medication for those prescriptions.

Also, is Obama pushing for a two-tier system or what? And why are Americans so freakin afraid of socialism?!

I'm not at all well-versed about our system as it is. All I know for absolute sure is that insurance companies are able to leave their customers screwed, blued, and tattooed. And there doesn't seem to be much the customer can do about it.
Yes, Americans routinely get denied by insurance companies because of pre-existing health conditions. My grandmother pays an arm and a leg to her insurance company, and can't look for another one because of her conditions. It's sick stuff, the private insurance game.
Why are Americans afraid of socialism? 1) Too many of them don't understand the true definition of the word, 2) Too many of them think "Oh, we're such HOT SHIT, we do things our own way, screw everyone else and their commie ways of doing stuff, 3) It seems to me that too many individuals don't give a good goddamn about their fellow humans: "They didn't prepare themselves for bad health by getting a better education and a better-paying job? Tough. Let 'em die, it ain't my problem." Few people stop to think about how people who do 'menial work' actually make life a whole hell of a lot easier for them. How many attorneys/doctors/CEOs could go out and grow all of their own food, build their own houses, assemble their own vehicles, deal with 'dirty jobs' like sewage, or do any of these other things they've always had done for them, so they could live in comfort and earn their degrees? And when these hard-working individuals doing the thankless jobs get hit by a grave illness, what happens? Their insurance company starts using loopholes to get out of their obligation. So the individual is left with the majority of the bill, and is financially RUINED. Nobody stops to think about that, but it happens all. the. time.
Something I hear all the blasted time from militant nay-sayers is "the government will be taking more than 50% of your paycheck in taxes to help fund socialized medicine." I nearly wet myself EVERY TIME because 1) these folks probably pay more than 50% of their income to their unscrupulous private insurance companies who will screw them out of coverage given the slightest chance and 2) America pays more per capita for healthcare than any other nation, but we still have more people who are not insured. That's PATHETIC.
I'm interested in concepts of leadership and power, especially with women. Duh, right? wink.gif I found an interesting article about Nancy Pelosi. There is something I always liked about her.

ETA: I found this article this morning on Obama's Healthcare Reform. I need my morning coffee before I fully divulge this article.
*Long Post Warning!!!

QUOTE(jsmith @ Jul 21 2009, 12:25 AM) *
I'd like to know what all of your views are on the health care bill, if y'all don't mind.

To my knowledge, this hasn't been introduced in any of the bills currently floating around, but given the political volatility associated with this issue, I may have a plan in mind that would be as imperfect as anything else, but could satisfy the three main hotpoints (IMHO) of this issue:
1 overall cost of care
2 too many uninsured (very much related to #1)
3 the fact that many Americans do not want the government running their health plan

Pres. Obama eluded to the possibility of opening up the plan made available to federal employees to cover all Americans interested in joining. I think this could work if the following regulations were attached to it:
1 Everyone must carry coverage, whether it's a traditional PPO type plan, HMO plan, or high deductible/HSA/'oh shit' plan (all available to fed employees currently)
2 Insurance companies must cover all, regardless of age or medical history
3 Insurance companies must cover all procedures/treatments if 2 doctors agree it is necessary

In order to prevent people from having to choose to pay rent or health insurance, those making below a certain threshold (i honestly have no idea what it should be, especially since a living wage in bumblefuck wouldn't cover rent in NYC) would receive gov't vouchers to cover all or a portion of their insurance premiums. Since non-paying patients would essentially become non-existant, overall costs should go down. Insurance premiums should theoretically go down since the risk is spread over a larger pool.

This satisfies the need for comprehensive coverage, as well as satisfies the conservative concern of government run health care (founded or unfounded as it may be, some conservative support is needed to get something passed). There could be incentives to all parties for maintaining good health through preventative care, and a hundred other details that I haven't thought of/just didn't write out.

Seeing as how I'm very fortunate to have an employer that provdes 100% of my insurance premiums, and have an annual out of pocket max of $5500, I don't fully understand how crushing medical debt can be, or the feeling of helplessness associated with knowing I can't get treatment for me or my family because we can't afford it. I guess what I'm asking is, why hasn't something like this been proposed yet? I mean, it could be used as a political win for all (democrats can tout universal coverage, republicans can tout that insurance is still in private hands) and meets the end goal of everyone having equal access to health care.

Is there a fundamental flaw that I'm just not seeing? I realize the vouchers will be expensive, but would they be any more expensive that what is currently paid out by medicaid/medicare? I'm sure there would be numerous details to work out, and the bill writers would most definitely turn this into a 1200+ page monster if for no other reason than to show off their excellent legalese skills, but in the end, would this work?? I understand it wouldn't be perfect, but given the sad fact that this will be more of a politcal game than a true attempt to better the lives of Americans (just like everything else it seems that comes out of D.C.), would the compromises made by both sides of the aisle be enough to get enough conservatives (Dems & Repubs) on board to get this passed? Just wanted to get the thoughts of others, as I've been comtemplating writing this exact plan out in a letter to my congressman & senators. All of which are somewhat conservative, even though two are democrats & 1 is republican.
I think the fundamental flaw in Obama's plan is that the private insurance corporations will still be in full control of coverage to all individual subscribers. It will inevitably result in a two tier system where those who can afford to buy really great insurance will have it, those who have no access to that insurance will be nickeled and dimed to death. I'd want to know what Obama would do, in detail, to regulate the private insurance companies so that no one would be denied access to care under any circumstance if it were needed. Unless his health care plan also involves a radical regulation of that industry, which is incredibly powerful politically as well as medically, I don't see how his idea for universal health care can succeed.

The systems in the world which do work effectively are the ones which are single payer--in that money to pay for all health care, cradle to grave, comes from the tax base, into which every one pays (including corporations--those are more the European models, as here in North America corporations are largely just taking from the tax base and no longer contributing to it). In these countries, immigration has to be courted as well: since these are the healthiest societies and full access to reproductive health care has become the norm there, many women have decided to have only the children they wish to have, and no more. This has resulted in a decline in birth rate--which has to be made up generationally by allowing immigrants from other countries to relocate there and create both demand for upkeep in the infrastructure of the country as well as steady contributions to the tax base. Countries which have been slow to understand this have had to learn the hard way---no money going in with new tax payers = no money for health care, pensions, schools, hospitals, etc. etc. etc. All of which also create jobs which keep the whole service system--including universal health care--in top form.

Canada started to seriously privatize its health care system about 15 years ago, in earnest, province to province. But when Free Trade was started during the Mulroney era, the complete elimination of universal health care, pension, unemployment insurance, all our social services which we've been paying into for our entire lives--were planned to end, and the dismantling started there with hospital closures, massive job elimination in all health care facilities, and terminated coverage for more and more treatments considered less than vital--such as medication drugs for older people. It's lucky we have what we have now! But it is true: people do die waiting for treatment now (which rarely happened in the past) and many things which used to be covered are no longer covered--though our taxes are still being collected to pay for those services. So our system's been taken apart and it's a shadow of what it used to be. To "examine" it now as an example would be to look at the way it's been decimated since it's been privatized over the last couple of decades. It's just not a good comparison to make, and it's not a good standard on which to judge private vs. public. Look at Norway's health care system instead--also not perfect, but at least it's not bullshit like Canada's.
when obama doesn't mention or push a public plan in an interview about healthcare, and when i hear stories about how there are negotiations about how the heathcare companies are getting ammendments that will mean no more than 5% of people can be in a "government co-op," and when obama tells democrats not to talk bad about the blue dog democrats-- the very ones who are holding up healthcare reform...

why do i get the feeling obama isn't serious about real reform?

why has he consistently taken the weakest possible position when negotiating?

i may be cynical, but if, as some people assert, that obama is holding off on eliminating don't-ask-don't-tell so he can pass this reform, my question is why bother, when what it looks like we're getting is only the most minimal of change to our fucked up system.

honestly, i want to like obama. nobody in the lounge argued more fervently for him than i did, but honestly, imho, obama sucks.
bump for Koffeewitch
Thanks culture! (You culture thang). wink.gif

I'm in a peaceful frame of mind right now so I'm gonna keep my first spew short. BUT, I am MADMADMAD that Obama dropped the ball. NO, no. He did NOT drop the ball; he just up and handed it to the other team. WHat I am so pissy about is this: We now have fucking Monsanto chemical cocksuckers nominated to set our agriculture standards. Gee, as manufacturerers of chemmie pesticides, fertilizers, etc. what will Monsanto be recommending do ya think?

On Monsanto: they once developed a GMO that would not bloom/develop fruit without being exposed to a chemical that they had patented. So like if all the grains were introduced to these GMOs and then would not mature without Monsanto's chemical to pollinate them they could literally have control over the entire industry.
Letting Monsanto set ANY kind of ag. standards or policies is inviting the fox into the hen house for a permanant stay.
IF you are interested in stopping this Monsanto nomination, you can visit Food&Water Watch. org and click on their link for activism. They have an easy petition to send/ no having to register at the site or go through annoying BS. Just enter your basic info and click to send the petition. If you like, Food&Water Watch will send you updates to your mailbox. This is an excellent organization that has had amazing success at flooding Washington with hundreds of thousands of petitions and actually putting a stop to some of the current evil schemes.
This is painful in a "shooting fish in a barrel" kind of way. Someone did some interviews of people in the line-up one of Palin's booksignings.

In the line up to Palin's book signing
QUOTE(girl_logic @ Nov 23 2009, 08:12 PM) *
This is painful in a "shooting fish in a barrel" kind of way. Someone did some interviews of people in the line-up one of Palin's booksignings.

In the line up to Palin's book signing

Oh, girl logic, it's even in MY city, too. Are the good people of Columbus, Ohio some fuckwits or what?!

You know I started off laughting at them, but I just got angrier and angrier at the rich girl bitching about welfare and the MEN bitching about abortion. And the Christians saying that their freedom of religion is somehow being threatened. THose people sound like morons, but they represent millions of our citizens. sad.gif
Palin the Uber-Demagogue has got a Facebook page featuring a map of the US with strategic crosshairs symbolizing Democratic Congresscritters, in conservative districts, who voted for health care reform. Charming.

MSNBC coverage.

Holy christ, I had imagined her using a cutey little dart-board style bulls-eye. She's using an image of the cross hairs of a sniper rifle and what was her rallying cry? Something like, "Don't retreat, Re-Load"! And she doesn't understand why Congressional members are disturbed by their photos under the cross hairs of a sniper rifle? I mean, who wouldn't relish such a thing?

Isn't it funny that the "tea-party" has stopped talking about "t-bagging" now that they know what the word means? At first there was all this talk about "tea-bagging" the whitehouse. Classic comedy gold.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.