| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2008/5/31-6/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50103 Activity:kinda low |
5/30 Clinton is winning Puerto Rico. YES.
\- i wouldnt dismisss the PA results but the PR results are
totally meaningless ... Clinton is basically the Senator
from Puerto Rico:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_migration_to_New_York#Currently
Either you are being sarcastic or ...
Your brain has been classified as: poco.
--psb
\_ Are you a MCCain supporter or a Hillary supporter?
Why wont you sign your name? Are you embarrassed to be a
Hillary supporter?
\_ I'll just use your name. -- psb
\_ Why won't YOU sign your name? -jrleek (!pp !op)
\- i have been an strong obama supporter since Feb
[i was out of the country before that and pretty much
assumed hillary the liar would win, so i didnt develop
any strong opinions and just ruminated on mccain vs
clinton]. i also think it is reasonable to have many
anonymous conversation on the motd ["where can i get
a good sandwich in berkeley"] but for threaded
discussion, anonymity makes it hard to know if you are
talking to the same person ... so i jokingly
suggested signing with a hash of your name. are there
*any* soda motd/wall participants willing to publicly
say "i support hillary clinton". there are people
publicly willing to take different sides on the iraq
war, gun control, gaylordism, drug legalization, the
housing crisis/financial regulation, and i believe
there are some mccain supporters, but how come no
hillary supporters are willing to name themselves?
is it more socially awkward to admit to being a hillary
supporter than to talk about your love of p0rn, as numerous
sloda people are willing to discuss [wang, holob, the asp],
or again does it say something about the lack of confidence
and general insecurity of hillary fans?
or am i mistaken about this? i am prepared to respond
to "you are a naive fool for voting for somebody with
no experience". i can also understand "i have no
interest in discussing politics on sloda" ... in
which case why the craven crowing [i assume OP is a
hillary supporter not a mccain person]. by they way,
i certainly can understand your being embarrassed to be
a hillary supporter, so i dont expect you to announce
yourself. i am just curious if you are embarrassed.
for example i've written lots of one off sloppy code
and i'm embarrassed to show it to people if that comes
up. so i certainly understand when another colleague
is sheepish about sharing something done at a low quality.
but it is a different matter when somebody shares something
and has no clue it is crap and has no sense of knowing better
and the attendant reticence. --psb
\_ I was being funny. I cannot think of anyone who seriously
still believes Hillary can win the nomination. It was a
good fight. It's interesting that Obama is really not
winning a giant landslide of pledged delegates, but I guess
in delegate races we often get these really close contests.
\_ Why do you support Obama? -emarkp
\_ how can you NOT support Obama? McCain wants us in
Iraq for the next 500 years, he seriously believes
that the Iraq conflict is exactly like us assisting
peace loving Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Puerto
Ricans, Hawaiians, have I left out any of our other
successful military occupations of this century?
\_ Those are reasons to *not* support McCain. I see
nothing to recommend Obama. -emarkp
\_ "I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute
longer than necessary to secure our interests
there." - jmccain
What you're saying is a blatant mischaracterization.
McCain wants the mission to be completed. Do you
think it would take 500 years?
\- Obama treats people seriously ... I've been impressed
with his "big speeches" [post-Rev Wright race speech]
and smaller stuff [the way he handled a stupid reporter
when he left the Trinity Church over the weekend].
I also believe "character matters". In ths case his
democratic opposition, Hillary Clinton, is a lying,
sleazy, sanctimoious hypocrite. Policy obviously matters
as well, an on those grounds, I'm worried about McCain
and "plutocraticzation" ... note: I've long liked
I also believe "character matters". In this case his
democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, is a lying,
sleazy,sanctimonious hypocrite. Policy obviously matters
as well. On those grounds, I'm worried about McCain
and "plutocratization" ... note: I've long liked
and "plutocraticzation" ... note: I've long liked
McCain -- for reasons I wont go into -- I put a fair
amount of weight on his VN story and a few other
things ... but his recent pandering [gas tax] is a
little disturbing. We also have to forgive some
campaign time pandering, but I've again been impressed
with Obama relatively good record on this [ok some
on trade, but 1. there are issues there 2. at least
he treated people like adults on the gas tax] and in
contrast Clinton the liar has gone over the top
denouncing the enter science and profession of
economics. Also on McCain, I'm less sure than many a
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea ...
not because of the terrorism issue, but I think the
US has responsibilities to prevent a Rwanda-like
slaughter there, so they need to factor that in to
their calculations, not "only" minimizing US casualties.
I am not a Lawrence Lessig Fanboy ... I had never gone
to his WOB site before this ... but his 20min PPoint
on "Why I'm for Barak" is a good statement of "my
position".
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
http://blip.tv/file/664200
I strongly encourge people to watch the first one.
I'll skip re-interating Hillary's list of Unbelievable
Cockroach moves.
I'll skip reiterating Hillary's list of Unbelievable
Cockroach Moves. Sure some Obama supporters are
shallow youth just going along for trendy-ish reasons,
but he seems to have gotten a disproportionate amount
of the supprt of "serious adults" with a good record
of being smart and principled, e.g. Prof deLong and
Senator GOPAT. Which Hillary endorser are you impressed
with? Eva Longoria? Look at their endorsements page
on Wikipedia. Paul Krugman's endorsement tant him,
and doesnt help her [like his apologia about her gas
tax stance saying "it's not a big deal" ... missing
the point he is obvously aware of that it's what
it says about her, not the policy issue ... if a friend
of your steals $5 from your wallet when you are in
the bathroom, is that "not a big deal"?].
\_ Any particular policy of his you like?
\- put somethng on the table, if you want an answer.
\- put something on the table, if you want an answer.
\_ Huh? -emarkp
\_ No one knows what the mission is. Unless you're
talking about McCain's fantasy of Iraq becoming
a warm friendly place where an American soldier
can walk down the street unarmed and only fear
being pelted with delightly spring begonias, and
THEN we'll leave.
\- Peace with Honor.
\_ There you go again. Do you honestly believe
that? If you're gonna try to discuss things
like an adult then you shouldn't exaggerate.
Reality should be enough. The mission is
to safeguard the security of the new Iraqi
state: "John McCain believes it is
strategically and morally essential for the
United States to support the Government of Iraq
to become capable of governing itself and
safeguarding its people." "Our goal is an Iraq
that no longer needs American troops."
\_ iraqi state is artificial construct.
Cheney is secretly an Iranian Shiite
cleric. We should just pack up and leave
Iraq, we have messed up beyond any
reasonable doubt.
\_ McCain has changed his mind about half a
dozen times on what "The Mission" is, so he
is not to be trusted. What is the goal this
week?
\_ Interesting. What were the 6 different
things?
\_ The war will be easy. -2002
The war will be hard. -2003
We should not leave a permanent force.
-2005
We should stay 100 years. -2008
We should make Iraq a democracy. -2006
We should make Iraq stable. -2007
http://tinyurl.com/3o6w3x
\_ next goal will be 'we cant leave
Iraq because then Iran will just
roll on in and annex it,
thereby controlling over half of
the world's remaining oil.' by
then i'll probably agree. good
work, BushCo. - sad liberal. |
| 5/23 |
|
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_migration_to_New_York#Currently Most of the Puerto Ricans who moved there came from well-to-do families or were people whose economic situation could permit them the luxury of traveling from the island to New York by way of steamship, an expensive and long trip. Amongst the first Puerto Ricans to immigrate to New York were men and women who were exiled by the Spanish Crown for their political beliefs and struggles for the cause of Puerto Rican independence. World War I veteran Rafael Fragoza, commander (standing to the far left) with Borinquen Post 1216 baseball team composed of early Puerto Rican migrants to New York. World War I veteran Rafael Fragoza, commander (standing to the far left) with Borinquen Post 1216 baseball team composed of early Puerto Rican migrants to New York. It was difficult for them to find well paying jobs because of the language barrier and their lack of technical working skills. The few men who found jobs worked for low salaries in factories. The women usually stayed home as housewives and tended to their children. Puerto Ricans arriving in New York by ship Puerto Ricans arriving in New York by ship The Great Depression which spread throughout the world was also felt in Puerto Rico. Since the island's economy was and still is dependent to that of the United States, it was to be expected that when the American banks and industries began to fail the effect would be felt in the island. The outbreak of World War II, opened the doors to many of the migrants who were searching for jobs. Since a large portion of the male population of the US was sent to war, there was a sudden need of manpower to fulfill the jobs left behind. Puerto Ricans, both male and female, found themselves employed in factories and ship docks, producing both domestic and warfare goods. The new migrants gained the knowledge and working skills which in the future would serve them well. South Bronx, Spanish Harlem, Manhattan's Lower East Side and in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue began to resemble "Little Puerto Rico's" with their "Bodegas" (small grocery stores) and "Piragueros" {Snow Cone venders) in every corner. Puerto Ricans arriving by plane 1950 Puerto Ricans arriving by plane 1950 The third great wave of domestic migration from Puerto Rico came after World War II. Nearly 40,000 Puerto Ricans settled in New York City in 1946, and 58,500 in 1952-53. Puerto Rican women confronted economic exploitation, discrimination, racism, and the insecurities inherent in the migration process on a daily basis, however they fared better than did men in the job market. The industry that was attracted did not provide sufficient jobs. With increased population growth and displacement from traditional labor pursuits, the growing population could not be accommodated. Much of the surplus labor migrated to the United States. The first New York Puerto Rican Day Parade was held on Sunday, April 12 1958 in the "Barrio" in Manhattan. Its first President was Victor Lpez and it was coordinated by Jos Caballero. Prominent personalities from Puerto Rico headed by then Governor Luis Muoz Marn, attended the initial parade. Many Puerto Ricans returned to the island to buy homes and to invest in local businesses. Puerto Ricans have made many important contributions to New York and the society of the United States in general. Their love for Puerto Rico and their situation of being in a faraway land that did not accept them totally, led to the creation of the subculture of the "Nuyorican". Pedro Pietri established the "Nuyorican Poets Caf" on Manhattan's Lower East Side (236 E 3rd Street, between Avenues B and C) which is now considered a New York landmark. Nearly 41,800 state residents in 1990 had lived in Puerto Rico in 1985. According to the Census taken in the year 2000, Puerto Rican migrants make up a 12% of the total population of the United States with a population of well over 3 million Puerto Ricans (including those of Puerto Rican descent). |
| lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html comments (186) I wasn't going to do this, but then someone ask me to do it, and someone else told me (to my horror -- not that it would be insane for anyone, but insane for her) that she was for Clinton. So consider this my precinct captain duty for the lessig blog. this article, which talks about how Obama's domestic economic policies create an environment where people benefit themselves while also benefiting the common good, in contrast to other candidates. February 4, 2008 Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context. Summary: An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care" 2): Running for President requires an ENORMOUS amount of money. And Obama gets plenty of fat-cat support (can't give links or the spam-trap will eat this message). What the "Arab street" is going to see is not "change" but a colonial administrator, of a type they know real well. You're putting way more importance on symbols meaningful to US liberal intellectuals than make any real difference on the ground. Going up against an experienced, mean, veteran in many senses. I view him as mostly having taken a gamble that paid off on opposing the Iraq War, rather than it being an issue of right vs. Anyone who keeps doing right and not popular in politics loses power (to a first approximation). February 5, 2008 2:22 AM mike charlton: This is a first rate thoughtful piece. For what it's worth and that's probably not much, what persuaded me about Obama was that of the roughly 250 democrats who make a living from foreign policy, 90% supported him for president, primarily because they believed he had the best chance to restore America's positive standing in the world. The other reason was a speech he gave on education and its importance to our future. Chris: Hi, I enjoyed watching this video -- furthermore, I think it contains important ideas. Does anyone know if there is already a text transcript available? Perhaps it would be useful for me to help to create one? February 5, 2008 3:17 AM Jerome: Well made point - so much of what I've heard is that Clinton has more experience but I think Obama pointed out that so was Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. I have to say yo'veu sold me - though I admit I was leaning towards Obama since South Carolina. February 5, 2008 3:40 AM Gobama: Very well done, Professor. integrity, principle, vision, etc, Senator Obama has in abundance. Those are the qualities that cause 'followers' to feel extremely confident that they will be led to a better place. And these rapidly changing times, America will follow a better path or be left in the dust bin of history. The other Presidential candidates for the most part are just playing the same ole same ole politics of personal ambition alone, etc. but a good leader MUST also be about the people and about patriotism, about the common good. This man is the real deal, or off the charts as lessig says. A point not made in the video, that Seth may consider, is that Obama can beat McCain, which Hillary will have a hard time doing. Clinton would be a throwback to the split decisions we've seen in the past. though he always voted for appropriations to sustain it. His opposition to the war was unpopular in his district, however." But when the 1860's America needed to be United, Lincoln stepped up. Best all, and Seth, nothing but love for another interested and intelligent citizen. I have always valued your opinions, and even though I found Barack Obama without knowing you supported him, when I heard you did months ago, I was reassured. Sadly, I see that the RNC and the Rovian politicans weren't discouraged from posting even here, even against you. FYI, I am one of those "fat cats" that donated to Barack Obama. I make about 50k a year and am a single mother of a disabled child. I don't get child support, I don't get any government handouts. I donated because this man IS THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THIS JOB. But what you don't know and clearly don't realize is that I FULLY researched EVERY candidate in this race. And anyone who studies it and researches, as have so many Obama supporters (I even read the expose), knows it. It's because of people like you, who have no hope and nothing but hatred to spew that people don't feel safe in trusting. Seth Finkelstein: Mark: Tell me why Obama can beat McCain. One reason I think Clinton is the better candidate is because both Bill and Hillary have been through everything the Republican smear-machine could throw at them, and they're still standing. Every lie, every dirty trick, every smear, every blast from the Mighty Wurlitzer. Not petty little stuff like taking a speech off a website, but real wild conspiracy theories. That's the sort of "experience" I think makes a difference. net/articles/2008/02/05/transcript-of-lawrence- lessig-obama-video Prof. Lessig, you're obviously welcome to incorporate it into this webpage or link to it somehow. One small error I noticed was that the video claims that when Obama made his anti-war speech in 2002, he was a candidate for the US Senate. According to Wiklipedia, Obama didn't announce his candidacy for US Senate until 2003. How is a man who is focusing on corruption, implying that Hillary Clinton is not for campaign finance reform and hailing Obama as a beacon of hope? Hillary Clinton is a supporter of public financing (eg Canada), whereas Obama is apparently a supporter of people giving money but not lobbyists. Also, I have never heard anyone argue that Obama has as deep an understanding of the issues as Hillary. It seems intelligence and experience would be the first defense against special interests' misleading attacks. Sorry for the caustic letter, but Mr Lessig's endorsement is hypocritical and does not make sense based even on his own priorities. It also ignores deep differences in the candidates stances towards health care and other issues. Let's face it, Mr Lessig is endorsing Barack, like many Europeans, because he is black and charismatic. Almost as bad as my reasons for making improper use of a colon above. ANALYSIS: Who Was Telling Truth About Obama's Iraq War Position -- Clinton or Obama? "But Clinton's general argument is not without some substance. While there is no doubt that Obama delivered a strong anti-war speech in late 2002 -- just before the US Congress voted to provide President Bush with authorization of force -- there is certainly a question about emphasis of Obama's anti-war stance based on the website's front-page introduction to visitors." John J: @Seth: 1) Barack has attack Hillary Clinton, on her policy choices using accurate facts. The quote on the mailer you are referring to says "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it." This is a fact that she has on her website, and has repeated everywhere. Everyone will have to buy a health care plan or face as yet unnamed (although hinted at) consequences. When you compare the symbolism of an Obama presidency, a man who has spoken out against the war in Iraq; who has deep familial ties outside of the United States to a Clinton, or even a McCain presidency - two people who supported the war in Iraq, vociferously, Clinton who has deep ties to Israel (especially through her AIPAC lobbyist friends), McCain who has said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years if needed; both who say that even being seen in the same room with someone they are against would forever stain the prestige of the presidency - the Islamic world will see a significant difference in our foreign policy, even before any changes have been made. Noone would have ever expected a "rookie" to be able to stand up against one Clinton alone, much less both of them in a focused attack. You are right that Clinton is a stronger trench fighter, but the fact that Obama has been able to do as well as he has against her has shown that he can hold his own against whatever the Republicans throw at him. The Illinois Senatorial race would have been lost because he stood up for what is right were it not for his initial opponent so often doing what is wrong. He has repeated done what is right and not what is easy in fighting for lobbying... |
| blip.tv/file/664200 A short(er) video about whether Hillary Clinton could beat John McCain. |
| tinyurl.com/3o6w3x -> www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000979.htm Middle East and Europe designed to highlight his national security credentials. Unfortunately for McCain, his excellent Baghdad adventure could well produce the opposite effect. After all, this week's looming anniversary highlights that at almost every turn, John McCain has been disastrously wrong about Iraq. Here, then, is a look back at five years of John McCain on Iraq. On the Run-Up to War "Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power." "But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." On Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction "Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a "box." But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. Within this box are definitive footprints of germ, chemical and nuclear programs." "Not only that, they'll be relieved that he's not in the neighborhood because he has invaded his neighbors on several occasions." John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "And you think the Arab world will come to a grudging recognition that what we did was necessary?" "I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate." On President Bush and His Team "We are very fortunate that our president in these challenging days can rely on the counsel of a man who has demonstrated time and again the resolve, experience, and patriotism that will be required for success and the hard-headed clear thinking necessary to prevail in this global fight between good and evil." On a Permanent American Military Presence in Iraq "We cannot keep our forces indefinitely staged in the region. Were we to attempt again to contain Saddam, we would eventually have to withdraw them. The world is full of dangers and, more likely than not, we will need some of those brave men and women to face them down." "I asked McCain about his 'hundred years' comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that US troops could be in Iraq for 'a thousand years' or 'a million years,' as far as he was concerned." Maybe the MSM will reconsider McCain's so-called strength on national security. Posted by Del at March 16, 2008 12:11 PM Lying and senility are a double btch. Posted by GURU at March 17, 2008 02:07 AM Yeah, we need another jack=ass like this running our country. Posted by JIm Capps at March 17, 2008 07:30 AM The reason that so many radical Muslims, and many other world citizens, hate the United States is because of our OCCUPATION of Muslim lands, and because of our financial and military support of Israel - whose Jews left Palestine long ago and have returned to steal the land from Palestinians. Because Christians in the US mistakenly believe the false claim by Jews that Palestine was given to them by a god. McCain believed in the immoral invasion of Vietnam, and he believes in the immoral invasion of Iraq. He is a clone of our disastrous current President, so if you want this country to go bankrupt and experience more terrorism, vote for him. Posted by Stephen Clark at March 17, 2008 10:03 AM "Make it a Hundred, Make it a Thousand, Make it a Million." No dont go telling me someone is actually considering voting for him after hearing this? I would think you would identify with those in a mental ward if any of those many comments of his sounded rational Posted by odanny at March 17, 2008 02:54 PM Iran training Al Qaeda? |