Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
BBF
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 weeks ago
in Ahmadinejad plans victory rally on AMERICAblog
Considering the last questionable election results here...it is hypocritical for the US to disparage the results of any elections...in any country. Pls go to NoQuarter and see if you can find the articles by Dr. Lynette Long on how Hillary supporters were screwed in the last election. Obama was "selected", not elected.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
2 months ago
in The 'Pirates' Strike Back: US Ship, Owned by Pentagon Contractor With 'Top Security' Clearance, Seized Off Somali Coast. 20 Americans Held on RebelReports
Thanks for telling the rest of the story!
10 months ago
in Biden? Really??? on Jack and Jill Politics
Remembering Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010594.html
Biden's also a long-serving member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, because it vets and approves Supreme Court nominees, has an incredibly important role in protecting choice. There's good and bad on Biden's record here. He chaired the committee from 1987 to 1995, presiding over the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork (who was rejected) and Clarence Thomas.
Biden's role in the Thomas hearings, particularly his treatment of Anita Hill, are something that get little mention these days. (Although some women remember.) Biden says he did not vociferously pursue Hill's charges of sexual harassment because he didn't want to go after a Supreme Court nominee the way Republicans would. Here's Charles Ogletree, who represented Hill, on why Biden's excuse is bullshit:
OGLETREE: (Senator Biden) doesn't understand that by sitting back and taking no position that he has encouraged the victimization of Anita Hill. She has civil rights and civil liberties, too. She wasn't applying for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. She was not coming forward with an agenda to change the landscape of America.
And so for him to say that he didn't help her because he didn't want to be like the other side, to me, is to acknowledge that he has neglected to do his duties. He was the chairman. He was supposed to ask tough questions. He was supposed to get to the bottom of issues....And the bottom line is that Anita Hill was pilloried from beginning to end without any protection from anybody in that process....
What the senator did regrettably was to bend over in the wrong direction, and I think he did a great disservice in the sense of civil rights by being so tolerant of the lack of responsiveness on the part of one party and being so intolerant of efforts on the other side to bring out issues that may have shed light on (Thomas' character).
Some believe that thanks to Joe Biden, and his refusal to let those testify who confirmed Anita Hill's allegations, we now have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010594.html
Biden's also a long-serving member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, because it vets and approves Supreme Court nominees, has an incredibly important role in protecting choice. There's good and bad on Biden's record here. He chaired the committee from 1987 to 1995, presiding over the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork (who was rejected) and Clarence Thomas.
Biden's role in the Thomas hearings, particularly his treatment of Anita Hill, are something that get little mention these days. (Although some women remember.) Biden says he did not vociferously pursue Hill's charges of sexual harassment because he didn't want to go after a Supreme Court nominee the way Republicans would. Here's Charles Ogletree, who represented Hill, on why Biden's excuse is bullshit:
OGLETREE: (Senator Biden) doesn't understand that by sitting back and taking no position that he has encouraged the victimization of Anita Hill. She has civil rights and civil liberties, too. She wasn't applying for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. She was not coming forward with an agenda to change the landscape of America.
And so for him to say that he didn't help her because he didn't want to be like the other side, to me, is to acknowledge that he has neglected to do his duties. He was the chairman. He was supposed to ask tough questions. He was supposed to get to the bottom of issues....And the bottom line is that Anita Hill was pilloried from beginning to end without any protection from anybody in that process....
What the senator did regrettably was to bend over in the wrong direction, and I think he did a great disservice in the sense of civil rights by being so tolerant of the lack of responsiveness on the part of one party and being so intolerant of efforts on the other side to bring out issues that may have shed light on (Thomas' character).
Some believe that thanks to Joe Biden, and his refusal to let those testify who confirmed Anita Hill's allegations, we now have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
11 months ago
in Obama No | The Progressive on The Progressive
Professor Reed is an intelligent and honest man, as are his comments. Sometimes the truth hurts. Especially if you are an Obama supporter.
11 months ago
in Obama No | The Progressive on The Progressive
Two days ago I got a notice from my supposedly "liberal" site that there had been complaints about my criticism of Obama, and it was suggested that I find another website which was not "liberal" to post my views and that perhaps I should find a Republican site. Sad, very sad. Of course I have no intentions of following this "advice". Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I am wondering if some of the paid Obama bloggers have infiltrated the pretend "liberal" website.
1 year ago
in Dw. Dunphy On … Get Me Some Money Too on Popdose
Totally agree with your statement:
So here we are. The solutions: make companies pay fairly and make them pay dearly for going Absent Without Responsibility, make banks and big construction suffer for offering the drug and then ravaging the addict, bring the troops home and stop paying for blood and armor, and give the American debtor, who has more credit cards than hope, a light at the end of their rolling-balance tunnel. Do some or all of these things and then money can be spent on “stuff.”
Too bad the Republicans seem to be backing a candidate who claims Americans are OK with US troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. The few anti-war candidates were summarily dismissed by the MSM even before they gave up the fight. Both Obama and Clinton voted again and again to fund the war and seem to have no real plans for bring the US soldiers out of the Middle East. No one bothers to remind us that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are costing between 12 and 15 billion dollars a month. Perhaps we need to just declare "We Won", and bring the troops home.
So here we are. The solutions: make companies pay fairly and make them pay dearly for going Absent Without Responsibility, make banks and big construction suffer for offering the drug and then ravaging the addict, bring the troops home and stop paying for blood and armor, and give the American debtor, who has more credit cards than hope, a light at the end of their rolling-balance tunnel. Do some or all of these things and then money can be spent on “stuff.”
Too bad the Republicans seem to be backing a candidate who claims Americans are OK with US troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. The few anti-war candidates were summarily dismissed by the MSM even before they gave up the fight. Both Obama and Clinton voted again and again to fund the war and seem to have no real plans for bring the US soldiers out of the Middle East. No one bothers to remind us that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are costing between 12 and 15 billion dollars a month. Perhaps we need to just declare "We Won", and bring the troops home.
1 reply
DwDunphy
The most galling thing to me is that there are very visible, hemorrhaging wounds. We know what they are. We can address those wounds and make positive changes. One-shots of cash is like a single morphine hit. Only this time, we'll never feel even that because of outstanding debts, liens and such.
The current batch of candidates aren't too keen on taking up the cause because they will lose supporter funds. Those big money supporters are banks, developers, industry-types... essentially more of the same, which we can expect of our economy.
As for the war, why expend precious lives and blow material and cash we can use here? I'm not saying become America First isolationists, just that we must remove the plank from our own eye before identifying the mote in the eye of the world.
And what of Al Qaeda? Should we worry? Of course, but does anyone really believe our efforts in Iraq quell Islamic fundamentalism while our 'allies' in Pakhistan are harboring key fundamentalist figures?
The current batch of candidates aren't too keen on taking up the cause because they will lose supporter funds. Those big money supporters are banks, developers, industry-types... essentially more of the same, which we can expect of our economy.
As for the war, why expend precious lives and blow material and cash we can use here? I'm not saying become America First isolationists, just that we must remove the plank from our own eye before identifying the mote in the eye of the world.
And what of Al Qaeda? Should we worry? Of course, but does anyone really believe our efforts in Iraq quell Islamic fundamentalism while our 'allies' in Pakhistan are harboring key fundamentalist figures?
Bush was, quite literally, "selected" by a Republican majority Court, despite the clear and convincing evidence of election fraud in Florida by a Republican Secretary of State. That one's not even a question.
And in 04, it's also clear that Kerry was headed to a victory until a Republican Secretary of State and Election Machine company in Ohio declared otherwise.
But really, the point is simply the irony and the obvious reason for it. Our government is filled with those elected through election fraud, and they of course say "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
But when someone else does it, oh we take the high ground?