Bush's Great Recession has already caused deep cuts in crucial state and local programs from coast to coast. Now it is forcing cuts in Congress too.
But instead of cutting massively wasteful military spending, President Obama and Democratic "leaders" are pushing a record $708 billion Pentagon budget, including $160 billion for the never-ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you think Democratic "leaders" should spend our tax dollars on healthcare not warfare, there's an exciting new grassroots movement you can join: the Brownbaggers!
Last month, there were 22 Brownbag Vigils outside Congressional district offices. This Wednesday, that number will grow to 50 - and even more if you help organize one near you.
It's time to start a grassroots revolution to demand the change we voted for in 2006 and 2008.
Bob Fertik
p.s. We are also working to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in January to let corporations spend unlimited sums to buy politicians. If you haven't yet signed, please pledge to Save Our Democracy:
http://democrats.com/save-our-democracy
|
|
|
 Progressive Democrats of America’s Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign has expanded with the Brown Bag Lunch Vigils. PDA had its official kickoff for the BBLVs in January in 22 congressional districts across the country. This month, on Wednesday February 17, at least 50 CDs will be holding these vigils to raise awareness among the public and our elected officials that the electorate is not being served by current U.S. war policies.
Brown Bag Lunch Vigils (BBLV) are held on the third Wednesday of every month (with a few exceptions) in front of the home offices of representatives—and even a senator or two—in congressional districts all over the country. Most vigils go from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Go to PDA's calendar and see if there's a BBLV in your district, then sign up to participate in it! If there isn't a vigil in your area (yet), organize one yourself. It's easy. Get all the information you need on the BBLV page and schedule a vigil for your district.
Download fliers for your vigil from the BBLV page. Then make signs to show your representative and your neighbors what social benefits we could have paid for if the money spent on foreign, nation-building wars had been spent in our own communities.
Billions of our tax dollars (look at how many at this very moment) are pouring out of our country's coffers and into war pockets.
Take stand for peace with PDA and our partners - CODEPINK, AfterDowningStreet, Democrats.com, the California Nurses Assn./National Nurses United, Healthcare-NOW!, and United for Peace and Justice - with the Brown Bag Lunch Vigils.
In peace and solidarity,
BBLV National Team
 Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for peace and justice. Our goal in 2010: Expand progressive influence in Congress as we build on our 2008 electoral successes. PDA's advisory board includes seven members of Congress and activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin, Thom Hartmann, Jim Hightower, and Lila Garrett.
|
|
Bob FertikWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
Comments
Stop The Name Calling
Dear Bob, I think you do your organization & the causes you represent a true disservice by using the sexually pejorative term “Teabaggers” to describe the Tea Party movements members. The term the Tea Party Movement members use for themselves, as I believe you probably already know, is “Tea Partiers”. By using the word “Teabaggers” you lower the debate to the level of adolescent name calling. This serves no ones best interests least of all those of progressive liberals. You would do all concerned a true service by dropping the offensive “Teabagger” term thus elevating the debate to one of issues and not name calling.
Our own movement name
Hey, dagreen1. Guess what? Millions of people have no clue what you are referring to. I don't know about you, but niether I nor the friends I choose are promiscuous. We also do not patronize prostitutes. We do not patronize pornography either. Do you have any idea how many normal, mainstream Americans have no clue about that esoteric term you are referring to? I've only even heard it once and that was a few years ago and we had no idea what it meant and had to look it up and ask around before we could figure it out. Just because some people take a term as slang and they say that it has to mean such-and-such, doesn't mean that's what everyone thinks when they hear that word.
My comment about the other name 'Brownbagger' is this, and I think it's important: I've been saying Democrats need to come up with their own name for an American movement on the Democrat side - but I've been telling people that whatever name we choose for this movement has got to be an INSPIRED one - like the Republicans' is. Their name is so perfect that I've long thought it absolutely HAD to be thought up by some marketing expert (or experts) or a political marketing group. The name Tea Parties has such emotional resonance to Americans. It has tremendous historical American significance and it is synonymous with one thing in the American mind: Americans righteously throwing tyranny off their own backs.
At least SOMEONE knew that we have to respond with our own movement - and at least has done something about it. But the name 'Brownbaggers' comes up woefully short if there is another name out there that we're missing that would have the elements I mentioned above that the Republicans' name has. I know that brownbagging lunch is a good, economical thing that the average American HAS to do in order to get by and make ends meet. (Even Americans that don't have to make ends meet know that it makes 100% good economic sense to brownbag their lunch. Except if they have a 'power lunch' to get to.) But I say we have to not SETTLE. I don't want people thinking, well someone came up with 'brownbaggers' so we're stuck with that. NO WE'RE NOT. Hey - get to work out there thinking up the TRULY INSPIRED name that will RESONATE with the Patriotic emotion that almost all of us had for our country as schoolchildren. A name that puts us all on the same page and means the exact same thing to every American. I haven't yet been able to come up with that name. Help me think of it. Maybe someone on these comment boards is a marketing expert. Or just 'inspired.'
No Name Calling Involved
The term "teabaggers" originated with a political action in which people mailed teabags to their congressional representatives.
Supreme Court
The defeat in Massachusetts was a major slap in the face to Obama and all Democrats. It was not a Republican victory, but a massive showing of disinterest in the election as a direct result of the total failure of Democrats to live up to their electoral promises (for which they were elected - including "The most honest and transparent government ever").
Until the Democrats and the President stand up to the Big Corporations, and send back their bribes, and refuse to take more, immediately revoke the filibuster, and vote in a single payer (Public Option), stop Kowtowing to Republicans and fulfill the rest of their electoral promises, they will continue to lose and lose and lose.
They can fund everything and even pay back part of the National debt if they tax the ultra wealthy very heavily, especially companies that are outsourcing work to other nations, and if they cut the military budget from 60% to 30%. [This will in no way affect national security].
They must take on Murkowski and her beloved polluters, and shame them without mercy. They can even double the penalties for non-compliance.
Americans want a tough government which fulfills their campaign promises and which stops leaching out the middle and poor classes for the benefit of the ultra wealthy. If they do this, votes will indeed sky rocket in their favour.
REMOVE THE FILIBUSTER! STOP WIMPING TO THE REPUBLICANS! PROTECT ALL OUR WILDERNESS AREAS AND TELL THE CORPORATIONS TO SUPPORT OUR NATION AND NOT THEIR OWN POCKETS!
JUST DO IT !!!
The partnership of Corporations with the Administration and Congress, cemented by bribes of Campaign Funding to Parties and Individuals, has created a permanent Corporate Dictatorship, which has resulted in corruption and destruction of the Constitution.
The direct consequence of this has been the subjection of the electoral process to purchase by the wealthy and by Corporations, thus undermining the very meaning of the Constitution and Democracy, as well as the rendering of justice.
The collective actions of the Democratic Party and the Republicans continue to be ruled by Corporate America.
The only reason for this is the code of dishonesty and corruption which infiltrates everything in the USA.
The Democrats have had plenty of time to abolish the filibuster! Why have they NOT done this? For the simple reason that they are in the pockets of the Corporations.
They can still do it, but almost certainly won't, because of their cozy relationship with Industry.
If the filibuster is abolished, they can fulfill all of their electoral promises and just tell the Republicans to "Get Lost!"
They can give the same message to the Corporations and tax them in the way they should be taxed, with a super tax on all Corporations which are outsourcing work to other nations. This would put Congress in power! The Corporations would then be coming to Congress begging for mercy.
The ridiculous expenditures on defence amounting to over 60% of the budget should be cut to 30% - without weakening our defences!
These funds would pay for the public option about 5 times over and still leave enough to spend on a massive stimulus for wave, wind, and solar power, and electric powered vehicles and industry. The Public Option would be the greatest stimulus to small businesses, and would stimulate employment like nothing else. These employees would, in turn, start spending and revitalize the economy.
All Senators and House members, who have received bribes for their Campaigns, should be forced to pay back this money. This would cure the corruption and we could have honest Senators and House Representatives.
Is this possible? Certainly! Will they do it? Almost certainly not!
Why is it possible? Because the majority rules and can suck back all the wealth of the ultra wealthy any time they want to. All they have to do is to threaten their Senators and Representatives and force them to toe the line or else they will not be re-elected.
The key is to make the public recognize that they CAN do this. They CAN also force the President to make good on his broken promises by overriding his veto - a very nice return on "YES WE CAN!"
A coalition of hundreds of NGO's could raise the clout to do this! In short, a non-violent revolution. Another Tea Party like that of the Republicans only 100 times as powerful.
JUDICIAL REFORM
The recent era has revealed glaring flaws in our Constitution - flaws which have seriously
eroded our democracy and judicial system:
The long accepted concept of checks and balances on presidential power has been found seriously wanting. The president has been able to defy the supreme law of our nation in numerous ways and on numerous occasions.
It is clear that Congress must find ways to ensure that no president, including the current one, can flout the constitution and its human rights protections, and:
1. Arbitrarily set up courts which deny the most basic right to a fair trial.
2. Deny the right of Habeas Corpus.
3. Arbitrarily imprison any individual without accusation, fair trial, verdict or sentence.
4. Conduct warrant less spying on any individual.
5. Add disclaimers to bills passed by Congress and defy the terms and requirements in those bills.
6. Subject prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment, torture and degrading treatment.
7. Make lifetime appointments of highly biassed judges, who defy the Constitution and its human rights protections.
8. Override Rulings by judges which declare presidential actions to be unconstitutional.
In consideration of the above, I believe that steps should be taken to amend the Constitution in such a way that the appointment of judges is carried out by a non-political board of judges who appoint candidates on the basis of judicial experience and evidence of fair decision making.
Such appointments should not be for a lifetime, but for a period of 5 years, with renewal for a period of another 5 years on the passage of a favourable review of their conduct and adherence to the Constitution.
This would eliminate political appointments of biassed individuals, and give real meaning to the checks and balances which are otherwise removed by the very fact that the nominations are made by the president, and approved essentially by his own party.
The 5 year renewal would ensure that any judge who has failed to respect and support the Constitution, and makes repeated unfair decisions does not remain in office for more than 5 years. (This would not, of course, rule out impeachment for egregious crimes or misconduct at any time).
If the president defies any decision by a Court that his actions are not lawful, he may be required to appear before the Court, for reprimand. In the event that the defiance continues, the court may determine that a national referendum is called for, to determine whether he should remain in office.
Such a step would ensure that wanton acts in defiance of the Constitution could not be easily carried out, leading to a dictatorship.
The advent of the Obama administration would pave the way for a constitutional amendment incorporating these principles, since the judiciary would be selected by president Obama, and it would be to the advantage of the Republican party not to have lifetime appointments of such judges. Following this amendment, the current Supreme Court could be changed after the 5 year period for each judge, thus moving the Court to the left.
Judges in the UK. are non political appointments and this seems to work very well. There is no campaign involved in their appointment, and therefore no campaign contributions and very little chance for corruption.
How think you?
Sincerely,
Ian Campbell Cree, MB(Hons.), MS, FRCS(Eng. & C.), FACS, LRCP.
BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT
Being a bluedog I have become very disappointed with Obama's policy. I was hoping for change and it looks to me like he is being a more war monger than Bush was. Bush spent us into the red and now Obama looks like he is doing more to spend us than Bush, what is going on?
I heard that his plan is to
I heard that his plan is to take troops (out of somewhere) in August.
Executive Orders
Will the republicans be able to stop the exucitave orders when Pres O signs them bypassinbg the need of congress and senate? If he can do this it wont make no difference how many senators they are short will it?
Speculation
You start with speculation, and end with a conclusion. Were the Republicans able to stop Bush's executive orders?
We need to do something
I am very willing to be active. But I don't want to protest against Obama. It's the Republicans and some Democrats that are to blame. We think that by not voting and allowing the Republicans to win is getting the message out. But it's not. The only message that is getting through to the politicians is that the Republicans are winning. Obama said after the inauguration that we can't stop now. Our grassroots efforts got him elected, but he needs our help to get his agenda through. Obama has a 50% approval rating. If he had a 70% approval rating he could do anything. But right now, the senate democrats see a president with weakening support. Why would they rush to do what he wants? In polls, more people say they would vote for Republicans over Democrats. The Republicans can get people to storm town hall meetings. They can get people to march on Washington; they can get people to pay $300 to go to a conference. What do the liberals do? NOTHING. We complain and get mad at Obama because he isn't forcing the Democratic senators to do what he wants. We send strongly worded emails to Democrats. If we stay home and stop voting, the Republicans win. What does this do for us? If the Republicans win we will have not Healthcare Reform. If you truly want change, we cannot look to one man to make all the changes. If you want change, it's up to us. We have to let the Republicans, the conservative Dems and the media know that Obama isn't standing alone; he has the country behind him. If he sees us as a force, then we can get him to listen to us. Just like the Teabaggers get the Republicans to support them. So I will fight, I will work, I will be active FOR Obama and the change that he represents. I am not going to wait for someone to hand it to me. We did a great job getting him elected, but the work doesn't stop there. Especially when you see the powerful forces that are aligned against him. He can't do it alone. 100,000 people marching on Washington demanding health care would be a much better weapon in the hands of Obama and the liberal senators than angry blogs complaining about what isn't be done.
PLEASE LET US KNOW: HAS ANYON
PLEASE LET US KNOW:
HAS ANYONE OUT THERE HEARD OF ANY GROUP TRYING TO ORGANIZE A MARCH ON WASHINGTON FOR HEALTHCARE?
100% EXCELLENT post rlritt. My dad always told us that there are some things that just do not get changed until people take to the streets. He always said that even in our democracy the biggest fights require organized marches and demonstrations. It's what the media and politicians pay attention to. It's what makes politicians nervous. They either want the public displays of dissatisfaction to go away, so they want to do what makes the public marchers happy. Or they are happy to see the public display supporting what they themselves want to be able to do and it gives them the support they need to do it. They also want to appear to be on the side of the people, on the side of the biggest public, vocal groups.
You are right that President Obama said he still needs our help after the elections. We NEED to have our own version of 'teaparty' organized and OUT THERE in public gatherings. We Need a huge march on Washington for guaranteed health coverage.
Here's an example of numbers (of supporters of a cause) creating more numbers: I was a kid during the 70s. I wasn't paying attention at the time to Watergate. But my dad says that as he remembers it, at first congressmembers hemmed and hawed about impeachment. But all it took was a couple of congressmembers to publicly say they supported impeachment hearings and that gave courage to other congressmembers who then felt it was safe to support it. So then they all started coming 'on board' with it. There is safety in numbers.
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY MARCH BEING PLANNED for the spring or summer? When President Obama was inaugurated people travelled from all over the country to be there for the historic event. I had family that travelled hundreds of mile by van. Some people chartered buses. We would just have to get this thing in the planning stage now. We could have signup lists to get an idea if there'd be enough interest. We could plan it for a time when as many people as possible could make it there - (including children?) - and on a date that historically has good weather at that locale. We need signs with huge photos of loved ones who died from not being able to afford our country's health insurances and from being denied coverage or services. We could have kids of people who died on a podium and have a day-long event.
Just remember: if at first it seems that there's not as much interest in it as we would like, by still going ahead with a march that has moderate numbers, millions of other people could see it, get the courage to 'get on board' with us, and then become vocal and public about it.
There are so many organizations that could get together and put this thing together: Democrats.com, MoveOn.org, etc., etc. HAS ANYONE AT ALL HEARD OF ANY GROUP TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A MARCH ON WASHINGTON FOR GUARANTEED HEALTHCARE?
You're Right
Obama famously said "Make me do it." Hold him to it!
Join the National Single-Payer Health Care Conference Call happening tomorrow (Monday, 2/15/10) night.
Single-payer meets all of President Obama's three bedrock principles for health care reform.
It's no secret what the health care industry is attempting to do: get a government mandate requiring people to buy their product, and they are spending exorbitant amounts of money to accomplish it. According to Open Secrets:
At nearly $266.8 million, the pharmaceutical and health products industry’s federal lobbying expenditures not only outpaced all other business industries and special interest areas in 2009, but stand as the greatest amount ever spent on lobbying efforts by a single industry for one year....In 2009, this sector spent nearly $544 million on federal lobbying efforts, up almost 12 percent from its 2008 total of about $487 million.
That money spent lobbying is money that did not go into direct delivery of medical services. Think what a difference over half a billion dollars could have made in the lives of Americans in need of medical care. Instead, we have our fellow citizens doing without, or buying health insurance and still going bankrupt for medical care.
President Obama challenged us to "make him do it." We should take him up on it.
WHY THE ANGER
Why are so many Democrats so angry when a bluedog democrat wants to do something that doest fit their agenda? I dont want to leave the democrat part and become a independant, but would love a little appreciation and love from my fellow democrats. Dont get your panties in a wad becasue I happen to be a little conservative. I am a JFK democrat and it looks lto me like the democrats are gettinmg away from his ideas and going more to a socialist agenda.
CajunHillbilly - Let me
CajunHillbilly - Let me first say your username makes me hungry for some excellent, down-home CAJUN COOKING!! I could live on that stuff. I just had some homemade low-country boil the other day (technically Cajun?). Okay, I'm not a food expert. I just know good food.
Anyways, I'm also a Democrat who is 'conservative' in a couple of ways. I think most Americans are like this: whatever party they belong to, they do not agree with everything that their own party stands for. That's to be expected and it's not a bad thing. My favorite uncle is a Republican and I love him dearly. But he is on the financially-comfortable side of life and he sincerely just doesn't understand about how devastatingly terrible things can get for a huge percentage of Americans. Most people who are financially comfortable and have their OWN needs met very easily get out of touch with what it can be like for most Americans. I will never be a Republican because that party's 'anything for a buck' philosophy is inhuman. And most other Republicans who might be Republican for other reasons are either out of touch with the struggles of most Americans - or they're constantly misinformed by the VERY unbalanced, Republican Fox-FAKE-'News'-Propaganda channel.
Please don't let the length of this comment bother you. I don't like reading long comments either, but I'm not just typing this to hear myself speak - or because I don't have anything better to do - or because I like typing. (None of the above.) It's just to explain this way of seeing things. If I say anything at all that offends you please don't assume that I know I'm offending you. It's just honestly sharing with you an explanation of this way of seeing things. When someone else simply expresses their way of seeing things I can almost always respect it even if it's different from my own opinion. As long as people don't call each other names or anything like that. (A possibly-useful tip: If I think someone's comment is very long, I just 'break it up' into 2 parts and read half in the morning and half in the evening.)
I can't speak for everyone's anger. Maybe some anger was uncalled for from someone. Anyways, the short answer to 'why the anger' is not that people don't like someone having a different opinion. It's just that many people do tend to get angry when they see 45,000 Americans per year dying needlessly because of insurance industry GREED and CRIMINALISM - knowing that for 8 long years the Republicans had control of the entire government and did nothing at all about this life and death issue. If YOUR loved one died from it you'd be angry too. Many people don't die from it but get crippled from it and suffer in other ways from it. Many people pay their insurance premiums for years and years and then when they have to USE their health coverage the insurance company says no - or suddenly finds a reason they should not have accepted you as a customer 15 years ago - but you were a good enough customer for them to take your money for all those years, etc.
One bad legacy of the Reagan administration was the hugely growing gap between how much the wealthier Americans make and how much THE REST OF AMERICANS make. Under Republicans, the rich kept getting richer, the middle class was disappearing, and the poor were literally being MURDERED by our criminal so-called 'health' insurance industry. Clinton finally gave us a budget surplus and an EXCELLENT economy. (Questionable personal life, but excellent President.)
I respect your right to disagree, but quite seriously: the Republicans had control of the ENTIRE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT for 8 YEARS when George Bush, Jr was in office!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cannot POSSIBLY believe they wanted to fix the criminal health-insurance industry - but that they just weren't allowed to. They had the power to. THEY DID NOT WANT TO. They LIKE allowing 45,000 Americans per year to die from the criminal health insurance industry because it means the corporations make a higher, obscene, immoral profit margin. That is the Republican philosophy. They are the party of 'I've got mine.' As long as they have their own medical coverage, or their own whatever, that's all they care about. They DO NOT GIVE A D&MN about you and me and our friends and families. They care about the incomes of insurance company CEOs and their own comfort. Republicanism ALWAYS makes some quick, short-term money for a small amount of priveleged people - and then in the long-run Republicanism always crashes economies, makes banks fail, allows Bernie Madoff scams, steals people's entire life-retirement savings, puts other people out of jobs - always, always, always makes things WORSE for MOST Americans - the average American.
You refer to yourself as a JFK democrat but there was NOTHING that the office-holding Kennedys fought for more than this: the life-and-death NEEDS of average American citizens and the life-and-death NEEDS of people trying to stay alive with their heads above water. They fought for the average American and the less fortunate. They also fought for freedom from communism - not freedom from socialism. Why? Because socialism's not an issue. FoxFAKENews and Republican politicians want you to think it's an issue. Medical insurance coverage is not a luxury. It is a life-and-death need. The rest of us don't care what word it is called: We want our government to PREVENT US and our loved ones FROM DYING. We don't care if someone puts the word 'socialism' or 'green-frogism' or any other word-ism on it. It is a Republican lie when they say guaranteed health coverage for all can't be done with citizens happy. It IS done in other countries. I live in a large American city on the Canadian border. I can tell you first hand that Americans go TO CANADA for much, much, much cheaper medications. But Canadians are not coming here.
When it is something voted for in a democracy, it is the will of the majority and it is democracy. When you hear 'socialism' think 'society.' Society has needs. We need streetlights, paved roads, free schools for kids, bridges that do not fall, police officers, firefighters, etc. When a democratic government takes care of society's needs with taxes, they're just doing their job. It has AN ELEMENT of socialism - but democracies ALWAYS DO. That's because voters like government meeting society's most important needs - doing its job. It's what people WANT and vote for. I was a political science major and calling it socialism is incorrect. It is 'democracy' in action. The idea there's anything wrong with our government doing things to help our society is ridiculous. Call it green-frog-ism if you want, but I guarantee if YOUR girlfriend, spouse, child, parent, best friend - or even yourself - were DYING because of 'corporate-insurance-industry-GREED-ism', then you would not care what word someone else calls it - you would want what the rest of us want - GUARANTEED HEALTH COVERAGE.
I was just reading about an example of an insurance company that raised its health premiums this past year by 35 - 39%. These are ridiculous double-digit increases. And it's not because the company had to. They made a VERY healthy profit last year. They only did this to their customers because they have the power to and because corporations are just like machines - no souls. Corporations are inhuman. It is up to us to keep them in line like most Americans WANT their government to do.
I was a benefit administrator for a number of years until recently and I used to watch the double-digit increases in healthcare premiums that were already too high to begin with. Every year the increases outpaced the inflation rate to a ridiculous degree. It was unsustainable. The health insurance industry has been in CRISIS and OUT-OF-CONTROL - and CRIMINAL - for much, much, much, much too long. We had to bail out the auto industry and banks and huge corporations and wall street because of Republican criminal irresponsibility. They ALWAYS only think SHORT-TERM. Their philosophy could be called 'GETTING-as-much-money-for-themselves-as-possible-right-now-ism', no matter who else's life gets ruined in the LONG run because of it. They are the party of 'I've got mine - and that's all I care about' and 'I want more now' - no matter who has to die for me to get it. This president has reached across the aisle to try to get the Republicans to be reasonable in compromising on a health reform bill. They have not been. They've only obstructed. They DO NOT OFFER ANYTHING SERIOUS TO FIX OUR BROKEN HEALTH-INSURANCE SYSTEM of things - because they do not care that it is broken. It suits them just fine.
AmericanCitizen
Well said excellent comment. You hit it right on the head. The republicans controlled it all and did nothing for the common man what makes anyone believe they would do something now. thanks again great comment
Thanks Krag. : )
Thanks Krag. : )
What anger?
What anger are you talking about?
Does this describe you?
"...if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
Support Obama
At this crucial time when the Republicans are trying to stonewall everything, it is important our leaders, especially our President, knows we "have their back". When Obama said that his election was only a chance for change, this is EXACTLY what he meant. For the first time in many years, we have the opportinity to be in control of our own destiny. What does this mean? It means that if enough of us become active with this group, OFA, or some other, our leaders will have the popular support to make the changes we elected them to make. But if we sit and do nothing, that's what we will get --- nothing. Change began a little over a year ago. How far it goes depends on US. First me, then you. Myself, I am a Community Organizer with OFA. We welcome all of you. But whether you join up with us or some other Progressive movement, do something. The President has placed the future of our Country in OUR hands. And if we do nothing, that's what we'll get. The time for action is NOW. Don't wait another moment!
Why am I supposed to choose my poison?
What about neither? What about having a non-wellfare, non-warfare state? Granted, if I AM forced to choose the method of the US's demise, I'll go with wellfare (twice on Sunday), but... HERE'S an idea: those who EARN the wealth decide how best to spend it. What about that?
Voodootree
Hi Voodootree, I see you're new here. You can view Democrats.com rules here.
From your registration and the questions you've raised, it looks as though you may not agree with some of them, in particular those below.
Democrats.com members who wish to participate in our message boards should observe the following rules:
You must generally support President Barack Obama, and you must not misrepresent his positions or actions, smear him, or attack him (1)
You must generally support the principles and candidates of the Democratic Party, and you must not misrepresent their positions or actions (2)
You must support our efforts to build a dynamic and supportive community of progressive activists (3)
Will you abide by those rules, and the others listed on the rules page? If not, please consider this your first warning. Thank you.
Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah.
Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah. Hold on. I AM A DEMOCRAT. REGISTERED, CARD-CARRYING, etc, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE. AND I DO NOT LIKE ONE BIT WHAT I AM SEEING HERE. I have not agreed with Voodootree -and I have replied to his comments accordingly. See for example where I called him an "Anarchist" this evening. And I did say something to him today like 'get off our posting board.' But I only meant if he/she were willing to do that voluntarily. Unless there is something egregiously horrible, over-the-top and unacceptable that Voodootree has said that I missed, then we should not be acting like the Republicans who want a lock-step, white-washed, police-state, everyone-fall-in-line-or-shut-up type of world.
It is much too easy to want to put opposing thoughts and viewpoints out of range from our hearing. But we are DEMOCRATS. We are not the police-state supporting Republicans. That's one of the most important things that sets us apart from them.
Haven't you ever heard of the ACLU? We are Democrats. We are supposed to be the ones who understand this most important and necessary of all principles: "I might not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Unless it is a political organization whose express purpose for existence is to purposely promulgate lies and misinformation on a massive scale - like the Ministry of Propaganda's FoxFAKENews.)
I myself have personally received email from Democrats.com's co-founder and president Bob Fertik thanking me for pointing out to him something particular on Democrats.com that needed to be changed at the time. He saw my point and decided to change that particular thing and emailed me to let me know and to thank me. I have to say that this policy mentioned above is something that I myself was not aware of - and it could seriously use some tweaking.
PLEASE consider the following points (which are in no particular order) - and realize how important they are:
1) We should not feel threatened by someone simply speaking his or her opinion if it is different from ours. (See the 3rd or 4th paragraph of my long response to CajunHillBilly's 'Why the anger' post, for example.) I don't know about you, but I actually BELIEVE in the general Democrat philosophy and principles enough to know for sure that - when they are explained well enough and clearly - then they stand on their own. No idea or philosophy or attitude that a Republican speaks can hold a candle to the Democrats. Don't most of us know at least one person who started out thinking like the Republicans but eventually had their mind changed by TALKING with a serious Democrat or two? I do. I know a number of them. Please do not shut off our avenue here of having discussions with the occasional person like that.
2) I do know - very much so - that one thing the Republican party has 'over' us is their willingness to play hardball with their own officeholders. (How well we all know this, right?) Tom 'the hammer' Delay was an example of that. They would not tolerate, for example, the Joe Liebermans of their own party as we do. And therefore, when they have power, they achieve their agenda. On the government level, our party Needs more of that. BUT, AS DEMOCRATS, WE SHOULD NEVER SUPPORT THAT ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. There IS such a thing as fighting fire with fire - on the government (officeholder) level. But on the personal, society level we must NEVER support BECOMING a bully in order to fight a bully, BECOMING a tyrant in order to fight a tyrant, BECOMING narrow, closed, and insular in order to fight people who are narrow, closed and insular, etc. WE MUST NEVER ALLOW THEM TO MAKE US LIKE THEM! We should not allow any feeling we might have towards them to make us like that.
3) They help to keep us sharp and on our toes. If a person only surrounds him-or-herself with people who think the same things that they do in the same way they do, then their ideas never get challenged, they become overconfident and out-of-touch, and sooner or later they become ineffective at politics.
4) Also, only surrounding yourself everywhere with people who think exactly the same way you do contributes to the dangerous polarization of America that a hyper-political atmosphere causes. (Think Rush Limbaugh here, for example.) If nothing else, we have to realize that just because someone doesn't understand the things we do does not mean they are evil. If someone sees something differently from the way we see it, it does not automatically make them evil. Yes, there is such a thing as evil people. They do exist.
But there are good people and bad people in every walk of life, in every religion, in every nation, in every political party, in every socio-economic demographic, etc, etc. And politics is not pure. It is now, always has been, and I suppose always will be part evil. I say this as someone who has a bachelors degree in political science, has always loved learning and knowing about it and keeping up with it, loves being engaged in the process, and has always been a Democrat. But would rather be dead than to ever let myself become a political beast. People like that - in either party - become inhuman - and can actually become almost evil. I will NEVER be a Republican. (No child of mine ever would be either.) But each party has its own ridiculous positions that it defends. Niether party is the party of the pure saints and the all-knowing with the other party being evil. That is simplistic thinking. We must never lose sight of the fact while someone may be on the other side of the 'aisle' they are still human beings. (Most of them.) Most of us can engage them in political discussions and still preserve their dignity as human beings. We can be EFFECTIVE, strong progressive Democrats and still keep our sense of perspective as human beings on the society level. I also think this is one of the things that generally sets our party apart from theirs.
Own what you earn
Following up... Why do pollitical magnates get to decide how my taxes (about half of my earnings) are spent? When was it decided that I was to much of an idiot to keep myself safe and to help my own neighbor? Did I miss a memo?
The two previous comments
The two previous comments by AmericanCitizen have been deleted. Personal attacks (ad hominems) are not allowed here.
I agree that personal attacks
I agree that personal attacks should not be allowed. I request an explanation of which part of my reply was an ad hominem if only so that I will learn how to not run afoul of the posting rules. You of course do not have to repeat that part of my reply in order to answer my request. I just want to know if it was the semi-adjective that I used about brains or not. You can say yes or no.
But please note that the only reason I did that was that the commenter I was responding to did it first but in a roundabout way. That commenter implied that we - Democrats - are idiots. When that commenter said 'am I too much of an idiot to keep myself safe' it seemed to me to be saying that Democrats are.
"The ideas of the commenter I was replying to promote anarchy." Can I say that?
But just to clarify, I don't
But just to clarify, I don't mind that Voodootree posted the comment that he or she posted here. We, as Democrats obviously disagree with it. But it is also a ridiculously simplistic out-of-touch-with-the-real-world post by Voodootree.
Characterizating any member
Characterizating any member in an insulting way is not permitted here. Anyone's arguments are open to criticism, but personal insults of any kind are not allowed.
Thank you for clarifying Max.
Thank you for clarifying Max. Wow! Responsiveness! Quite seriously impressive. Much too cool and impressive. I'm used to organizations (usually corporations) that you send a message to and get a response from 2 or 3 days later.
We're allowed to change our
We're allowed to change our minds, right? Well, when I first read Voodootree's comment above, I took it as a roundabout way of calling Democrats the 'i' word. But now that I read it again, I think that's not the case. I don't think that's what he or she meant.
Just to clarify, I actually am sorry for the adjective for brains I used. Not like me at all. I actually believe people should't put down other people's intelligence. And for those that are christians, it is even in the New Testament. It's hard sometimes to not use words like the 'i' word in our speech, but I actually don't believe in using it.
More Voodootree
The questions you're raising were answered in civics class.
GOOD RESPONSE CHIP!!
GOOD RESPONSE CHIP!!
brownbaggers
You have got to be kidding. Talk about missing the whole point of the turmoil out in the hinterlands. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT NEITHER PARTY REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. (Yes, I know I'm shouting) Light a fire under our wonderful Democrats who are the sorriest excuse for public servants I've ever seen. Time to do the work before them. The work before them isn't making sure they get re-elected. Healthcare. Jobs. Banking regulation. An even playing field.
Skip the gimmicks. Just wake up the old boys.
No - it is incorrect to think
No - it is incorrect to think that putting letters IN CAPITAL LETTERS is shouting. Take my word for it. I agree with all of the rest of your comment. I am not upset. I am not shouting.
People - please don't assume if someone uses capital letters they are upset or shouting. That is an old internet idea that is just not taken as being true anymore unless it is OBVIOUS that someone is personally upset at someone else and it is VERY clear in the context. Unless it is combined with some kind of personal attack it is not shouting. It is simply another way of emphasizing something. There are italics, capital letters, bold print, and exclamation points. Four layers of meaning and emphasis to choose from. Just an additional form of effective communication.
BoreGush (aka "BushGore")
>Skip the gimmicks. Just wake up the old boys.
What are YOUR (YES, I'M SHOUTING BACK AT YOU! Rude receives as rude sends.) suggestions for waking the old boys up? Let's hear it!
Capital letters are not rude.
Capital letters are not rude. It completely, totally, 100% depends on the context. They are just squiggles on a screen. Lighten up people. I LOVE capital letters here and there. Hey Chip. Here's an example: "Hey Chip, I COMPLEMENTED ONE OF YOUR POSTS." I actually did. Can't remember which one. Oh, yeah. It was where you said to someone (to Voodootree I think) that his question was answered in civics class. I LOVED THAT RESPONSE. (See? That was not rude and it was not shouting.)
Here's another example: IIIIIIIIII LLLLLOOOOVVVVVEEEEDDDDD CHIP's response to (Voodootree?) (fill in the blank). I'm trying to lighten things up here for at least a little while. Watch this:
You're not Eric Estrada are you? Or the blonde guy that played his partner in CHiPs? (Not to be confused with Starsky and Hutch.) Or a potato-chip corporation/empire magnate? (Hope it's okay to say I'm partial to the ones with ridges.) Or one of the people who fills vending machines with goodies? Or better yet - tortilla chips! Okay, so now you've got me hankering for a bag of plain tortilla chips and tons of french onion dip.
Tomorrow maybe I'll read this post that I put here and think 'Hmmm. What was I thinking?' So let me explain. I'm tired and hungry. Gotta get up early in the morning. Time to sign out. My name is AmericanCitizen and I approve of this message.
American Citizen
Using all caps on the net is considered to be shouting, and so, rude.
Incorrect el-chipo-meister.
Incorrect el-chipo-meister. (I feel on a first-username basis now.) It is sometimes considered that by some people. Please do not assume that if I use capital letters in my posts I am shouting. For my posts that are in particular reply to yours, I will try to remember to avoid capital letters because I know how you personally feel about it and I don't want you to be annoyed (or refuse to read my post). I know that general rules of etiquette are usually good to have, but that does not mean there is an etiquette tsar or elected etiquette president who dictates this as the word-of-God law of internet-land either. If someone says I shouldn't wear white shoes after labor day and I still do, it's silly of others to look down on me or feel offended. (I don't wear white shoes after labor day but I'm just making a point.) If I were to do that, it couldn't hurt anyone else but me.
How about if I say it should be considered rude that some people don't proof-read their posts and don't put it in legible, properly-spelled English because they make readers struggle through trying to understand what they were trying to say? Is it rude to their readers and disrespectful that they couldn't be bothered? Well that would be making an assumption. That's assuming they just couldn't be bothered or didn't care about the readers - when in actuality they might just be terrible spellers or terrible typists or might be on chemotherapy with 4 kids to take care of and they did the best they could, etc., etc.
If someone uses capital letters, I repeat: it 100% depends on the context as to whether it's shouting. Believe me, I am not the only person who realizes this and sees it this way. You are reminding me of an 'Ann Landers' or 'Miss Manners' letter I read in the paper recently. I think it was in the (nationally syndicated?) etiquette column Miss Manners. Someone wrote her a letter saying they were in a sports stadium tunnel with other people waiting to go to their seats while the national anthem was playing. They said one person pointed out to a stranger that they are supposed to take off their hat during the national anthem. The person with the hat on was going through chemotherapy and she had no hair. But the other person pointed out in front of everyone that she was supposed to take her hat off. She felt pressured and she took her hat off which revealed she was bald. Who was the person being rude there? A general rule of etiquette is not meant to be dictatorial. Try not to take things personally or take personal offense when there could very well be none meant at all. And don't make assumptions
Anyways, millions of people like me when they use capitals are just using another layer of emphasis for more precise communication and that's how we see it. Many people like me just believe in trying to be as precise in our communication as possible in terms of meaning and layers of meaning. Please don't automatically assume they mean to be disrespectful or rude. Don't be petty. Lighten up. Don't be thin-skinned. And try not to assume there's a reason to be upset at a stranger where none might exist. And even if you still think the person actually might be shouting, try more often than not to rise above it an ignore it. It will make you a better person than them. Of course if you still have the same opinion of this that you had, then you are of course free to speak it. But no one can speak for other people and state what their intention is or their state of mind.
I don't think any one of us regular comment-boarders here are silly enough to think that capital-letter-shouting (when it actually is that) makes anyone's opinion more intelligent or more valid: and if someone thinks that about their own post, that's their error. If someone hates capital letters that much or is that emotionally thin-skinned about it, then they can see capital letters from a distance at a quick glance of the comment and just don't read that comment perhaps. Just thought I'd give you some perspective here.
LIBERAL & PISSED OFF!
I'm tired of hearing that the Prez and a majority Congress has to be bipartisan! The American people are getting a big nothing with Obama and the conservative Dems butt-kissing the insurance companies, lobbyists for Big Business and the GOP. If I have to hear one more Rethuglican say their party is Christian, moral, and the other bullshit, while people are dying from lack of insurance, the war of lies, etc, I'll scream!
Yo, Joanaroo, just a heads
Yo, Joanaroo, just a heads up. If I were you I would've put that 2 syllable 'b' word like this: bull$#!t. You stand the risk of having your comment deleted I think.
I agree with you about the bi-partisan baloney. You try it at first, like we did. And then when you see that the other side COMPLETELY doesn't appreciate it - then you use your power and take what you have a right to - because you were elected to do that.
I also agree about the idea that any political party - ESPECIALLY the Republican one - would think of themselves as being the Christian party. (I recommend a book called 'God's Politics' for anyone interested in that subject.)
By the way, I'd guess your name is Joan. Good username!
Joanaroo on Heads Up
Joanaroo, American Citizen is not our decorum director here.
Okay, so I begin to see here
Okay, so I begin to see here a possible reason that Chip is called Chip. Ever heard of someone having a chip on their shoulder? If there's one thing I cannot stand on posting boards it's someone who insists on taking personal offense over nothing and misconstrues what others say, putting a negative slant on everything.
Just to take a couple of minutes out of my life to explain here (although many people would simply ignore Chip's ridiculous, totally unnecessary, discord-sowing comment): My comment was meant to HELP Joanaroo. You've heard of rose-colored glasses Chip? Well please take off the grey-colored glasses of 'taking things personally' that you seem to insist on seeing everything through.
And if you are in some
And if you are in some official capacity at Democrats.com dealing with posting boards, you could simply say 'it's not a problem Joanaroo' or 'it's not a problem Joanaroo because it's a mild term not used in a personal attack' or say something like that - rather than saying something in a snide way like 'American Citizen is not our decorum director here.'
Bushy-Boy Dubya Lied=GOP Bipartisanship
Of course Prez Obama could take a page from the Dubya Bipartisanship Rulebook: When you want things to go your way when your party has the Prez & majority Congress: Lie Your Ass Off! Weapons of Mass Destruction? OK, let's invade a country! Terrorists in our midst? OK, let's listen to American citizens on wiretap and read their messages! See, you could be honest and put your bills thru your own way-Prez Obama and Congress Dems! No lies and no damn GOP!
Max Is Da Man!
Hi Max! I think you don't mind the occasional swearing as long as it's not the more graphic words, used as a personal insult to a member, or is known as being used by someone who is passionate and wondering why the Repugs are so thick-headed. I got the nickname Joanaroo from a co-worker in a bookstore who always did the Rob Schneider routine on Saturday Night Live.
Thanks for sharing that about
Thanks for sharing that about your username. Just to let you know Joanaroo, I'm the person who gave you the 'heads up' message about that word, but it didn't bother me that you used that word. I was just concerned for your sake if they might 'disappear' your comment. I've been a long-time Democrats.com user but just didn't start using the posting boards til recently so I wasn't sure. I'm glad to see your comment to Max showing Max takes things in context.
American Citizen: No Personal Attacks
American Citizen,
Since you're new here, you may not be aware of one of Democrats.com rules:
You may not commit or incite criminal acts, post messages that are indecent, impersonate any other person, engage in personal attacks, post fundraising or commercial messages, or collect member names for harassment or any form of unsolicited communication via e-mail or otherwise
This is your first warning to cease your personal attacks. Thank you.
Well in that case I'm glad I
Well in that case I'm glad I haven't been doing any of those things. I was already informed of the posting rules by Max and did not need you to. Most of all I did not need you to imply that I am doing any of those things. If you work for Democrats.com. and are officially in that role, then allow new posters to know this by saying so.
More American Citizen
Democrats.com has a group of moderators, so it is unnecessary for you to direct another poster regarding their choice of words.
Your comments here are personal attacks. They are focused on a person, rather than constructively criticizing an idea or an opinion.
I am a site moderator, and as I previously noted, you have received your first warning to stop your personal attacks because they violate the Democrats.com rules.
#1) I did not 'direct'
#1) I did not 'direct' Joanaroo on her words.
#2) I kindly offered a possibility for her to consider in case it might be of importance.
#3) I agree that personal attacks should not happen, which is why I wonder about the reply to my reply to Joanaroo. The reply to my reply could simply have said 'I am a site moderator and it's not a problem Joanaroo because it was a mild word with no personal attack' - that would have been much more instructive - instead of saying 'American Citizen is not our decorum director' which could possibly be taken as being snide.
#4) Thank you for finally identifying yourself as a site moderator. It makes a difference and would avoid any problems to simply say so up front. For example, a man cannot tell a strange woman to get out of her car and show him i.d. unless he identifies himself as a police officer. For a plain-clothed officer to expect a strange woman to just do that without identifying himself as an officer would be unreasonable.
This is a respectful request:
This is a respectful request: I request to know from you Chip: are you in this official capacity at Democrats.com? I have been on tons of posting boards over the years and never once - I mean never once - have I ever seen anything like this. It reminds me of a police officer giving ticket after ticket after ticket to drivers going one mile over the speed limit or going around with a penny putting it in the treads of people's car tires to be sure they are up to spec. It makes you think that with all the other serious stuff going on, why does that police officer have all that time to be spending on that? Please tell me you are not in a paid capacity at Democrats.com.
And also, it should be up to
And also, it should be up to a commenter that someone replies to as to whether that commenter takes personal offense at something someone replies to them. It should not be a third party coming in and saying that person should take offense at what you said to them. You could at least let that person be the one to say if they are offended or not. Otherwise it could be the third party who is creating a problem where none exists.
Continuing in this way is
Continuing in this way is annoying and serves no useful purpose. This board is for discussing politics. The rules are clear. You've been warned once by Chip. If you continue wasting others' time and energy with pointless challenges to the rules, you will lose your posting privileges.