Obama''s Speech....

[MoonWater]

surfgirl, I''m blowing you cyber kisses (and trying to steal your gorgeous ring while you''re not looking lol)

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 3/27/2008 10:03:07 PM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly
He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.

In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

You mean to tell me that Obama got to know someone who''s views he couldn''t control and agree with 100%?! I just refer you to Shimmer''s most excellent post above for the Republican/conservative side of that coin, and their sins in associating with known hate mongers run way deeper than Obama''s defunct association with a preacher whose views he said he didn''t support...

So, I''m just curious...Would you mind explaining exactly what ''America'' you do support? Is it the type of ''America'' where our own president and administration send thousands of innocent American and Iraqi''s to their deaths based on a lie? Is it the kind of ''America'' where our own president and his administration happily whore out the national security of our ports to the very part of the world that they allege is trying so very hard to terrorize us? And allow overseas entities to manage the most delicate of records - our passport system? Or perhaps it''s the type of ''America'' where the majority of people seem to be self-absorbed ''real Americans'' who don''t give a damn about the environment, civility, good manners...You know, the plethora of ''Americans'' who drive around in their gas guzzling Hummers, who TALK LOUDLY ALL THE TIME on their cell phones in public places, ignoring the waitress/salesperson/whomever as they''re trying to assist such people? Or wait, maybe it''s the ''America'' where we allow criminals to run our natural/financial/human resources into the crapper so that when they all retire from office, they have nice family compounds to live out the remainder of their corrupt lives? Or maybe it''s the ''America'' where we let a small group of fanatical people to take what our Founding Fathers created - a nation that respects the separation of church and state for a very good reason - and just ignores that little fact and tries to brainwash part of the country into thinking that somehow, bizarrely, this really is a ''Christian'' country, and to hell with the other religions and ethnicities that live here in what was a melting pot for a reason (I believe the inscription on Ellis Island reads something akin to: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” yet in your ''America'' we try to marginalize anyone who doesn''t conform to Christian beliefs...So much for ''freedom'' huh? Is that your ''America''? I''m really curious. Because it''s unfathomable to me that anyone with an ounce of sanity could think that this country is collectively healthy, or headed in the right direction, or a country that others should look up to...I could go on but you get the idea...

Hmmmm, sure seems like you are putting an awful lot of words in her mouth.

 

[surfgirl]

No Jennifer, I''m describing today''s "America" and asking if that''s what she supports. Question, it''s part of democracy...

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 3/27/2008 11:10:13 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 3/27/2008 10:03:07 PM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly
He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.

In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

You mean to tell me that Obama got to know someone who''s views he couldn''t control and agree with 100%?! I just refer you to Shimmer''s most excellent post above for the Republican/conservative side of that coin, and their sins in associating with known hate mongers run way deeper than Obama''s defunct association with a preacher whose views he said he didn''t support...

So, I''m just curious...Would you mind explaining exactly what ''America'' you do support? Is it the type of ''America'' where our own president and administration send thousands of innocent American and Iraqi''s to their deaths based on a lie? Is it the kind of ''America'' where our own president and his administration happily whore out the national security of our ports to the very part of the world that they allege is trying so very hard to terrorize us? And allow overseas entities to manage the most delicate of records - our passport system? Or perhaps it''s the type of ''America'' where the majority of people seem to be self-absorbed ''real Americans'' who don''t give a damn about the environment, civility, good manners...You know, the plethora of ''Americans'' who drive around in their gas guzzling Hummers, who TALK LOUDLY ALL THE TIME on their cell phones in public places, ignoring the waitress/salesperson/whomever as they''re trying to assist such people? Or wait, maybe it''s the ''America'' where we allow criminals to run our natural/financial/human resources into the crapper so that when they all retire from office, they have nice family compounds to live out the remainder of their corrupt lives? Or maybe it''s the ''America'' where we let a small group of fanatical people to take what our Founding Fathers created - a nation that respects the separation of church and state for a very good reason - and just ignores that little fact and tries to brainwash part of the country into thinking that somehow, bizarrely, this really is a ''Christian'' country, and to hell with the other religions and ethnicities that live here in what was a melting pot for a reason (I believe the inscription on Ellis Island reads something akin to: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” yet in your ''America'' we try to marginalize anyone who doesn''t conform to Christian beliefs...So much for ''freedom'' huh? Is that your ''America''? I''m really curious. Because it''s unfathomable to me that anyone with an ounce of sanity could think that this country is collectively healthy, or headed in the right direction, or a country that others should look up to...I could go on but you get the idea...

Hmmmm, sure seems like you are putting an awful lot of words in her mouth.

As is typical.

I thought long and hard before posting, because I knew I''d become labeled as some "conservative/republican" because I don''t agree with a man who can''t reasonably state what he stands for in terms that he holds to. That''s fine. Sure is judgmental, to say the least.

Yep, I''m insane. That must be it. I don''t agree with some of the things Obama does or stands for or says (for the moment, at least) he wants to lead the country, or who he stood with (until oh-so recently), and I''m lacking sanity now.

I am an intelligent person and I have researched a lot about what the candidates are hoping to implement, if given the chance. I don''t listen to the debates, as they are ridiculous and all I get from them (with said candidate) is that "change" is what we need. Wow, thanks for explaining.

If he''s someone you can stand behind, awesome. But just because he''s not someone I choose to stand behind (ever), I''m not insane. Nor are the millions of people who don''t think he is the leader we need in this country, which is a great, awesome country, and I can only hope and pray can remain that way. I''d take this country to any other, in a heartbeat.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 3/27/2008 11:16:18 PM
Author: surfgirl
No Jennifer, I''m describing today''s ''America'' and asking if that''s what she supports.

Ok - but you did say "yet in your ''America''..."

Question, it''s part of democracy...

Except when questioning Obama, apparently. Oh, and our government is actually a Republic.

I LOVE your ring, though.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM

He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous 'economy stimulus' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I'm not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don't approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject 'change' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this 'change' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.


In a nutshell, that's the core of what I don't think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you're against Obama's $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush's $168 billion "stimulus package?"

I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of "trickle down" economics, you probably won't be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You're less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you're about to lose your house.

Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would "coddle" "illegals." They can't! Their campaigns would be over if they did.

This "issue" of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring "illegals?" Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring "illegal" workers to do jobs that many Americans would not "stoop" to do!

"Illegal immigration" as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)

And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won't be elected. He's not rich, he's not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.

"Who needs change when we've got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D's???"

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That's what the Right relies on.

My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM
Author: coatimundi
''Illegal immigration'' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)

My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

Hee hee Coati, you made me giggle!

Now granted it''s 1:43am and I just got done doing a long homework assignment, so it doesn''t take much, but still...

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM

He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous ''economy stimulus'' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I''m not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don''t approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject ''change'' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this ''change'' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.


In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you''re against Obama''s $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush''s $168 billion ''stimulus package?''

I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of ''trickle down'' economics, you probably won''t be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You''re less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you''re about to lose your house.

Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would ''coddle'' ''illegals.'' They can''t! Their campaigns would be over if they did.

This ''issue'' of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring ''illegals?'' Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring ''illegal'' workers to do jobs that many Americans would not ''stoop'' to do!

''Illegal immigration'' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)

And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won''t be elected. He''s not rich, he''s not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.

''Who needs change when we''ve got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D''s???''

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That''s what the Right relies on.

My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

Yes, yes I am.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM

He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous ''economy stimulus'' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I''m not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don''t approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject ''change'' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this ''change'' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.


In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you''re against Obama''s $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush''s $168 billion ''stimulus package?''

I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of ''trickle down'' economics, you probably won''t be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You''re less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you''re about to lose your house.

Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would ''coddle'' ''illegals.'' They can''t! Their campaigns would be over if they did.

This ''issue'' of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring ''illegals?'' Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring ''illegal'' workers to do jobs that many Americans would not ''stoop'' to do!

''Illegal immigration'' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)

And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won''t be elected. He''s not rich, he''s not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.

''Who needs change when we''ve got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D''s???''

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That''s what the Right relies on.

My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

If the severe problems our country is facing due to illegal immigration isn''t a "real" issue, I have no idea what would be. I work for the government, and if you only had an inkling of the amount of fundage that goes into "coddling" because that is exactly what it is, for illegal immigrants, it would make you sick. It would have to. I mean, I don''t mind someone coming here for right reasons, because this country is amazing, I just hate to see it wasting away as people who don''t take the appropriate actions to be here legally suck from the revenues and then make it just a hollow shell of what it was to begin with. If you''re not putting into the funds to keep the country running, you don''t need to be receiving the assistance the country is able to provide. That''s just basic. And like I said, if that''s not a "real" issue, hmm.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM

He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous ''economy stimulus'' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I''m not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don''t approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject ''change'' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this ''change'' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.


In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you''re against Obama''s $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush''s $168 billion ''stimulus package?''

I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of ''trickle down'' economics, you probably won''t be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You''re less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you''re about to lose your house.

Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would ''coddle'' ''illegals.'' They can''t! Their campaigns would be over if they did.

This ''issue'' of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring ''illegals?'' Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring ''illegal'' workers to do jobs that many Americans would not ''stoop'' to do!

''Illegal immigration'' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)

And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won''t be elected. He''s not rich, he''s not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.

''Who needs change when we''ve got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D''s???''

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That''s what the Right relies on.

My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

I did watch the debates in the begining, and I totally (TOTALLY) agree that the best candidate isn''t even a front runner at this time, specifcally due to not being linked to any of the "big wigs" that really make the decisions in this republic. It''s a shame.

And while this is true and sad, I still don''t support Obama.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM

He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous ''economy stimulus'' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I''m not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don''t approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject ''change'' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this ''change'' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.


In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you''re against Obama''s $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush''s $168 billion ''stimulus package?''

I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of ''trickle down'' economics, you probably won''t be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You''re less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you''re about to lose your house.

Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would ''coddle'' ''illegals.'' They can''t! Their campaigns would be over if they did.

This ''issue'' of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring ''illegals?'' Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring ''illegal'' workers to do jobs that many Americans would not ''stoop'' to do!

''Illegal immigration'' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)

And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won''t be elected. He''s not rich, he''s not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.

''Who needs change when we''ve got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D''s???''

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That''s what the Right relies on.

My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

And deciding someone is "Right" because they don''t agree with a Democratic front runner is what "the Left" does, too. It''s sad. I don''t have to agree with someone''s views, and not agreeing with them in no ways gives anyone the ability to therefore decide that I must be some radical conservative. I''m not.

But yeah, I''m used to this. If I''m not a totally hardcore liberal who says, "let''s just throw all the revenues the country has at whatever comes to our minds," then I''m a mean, cold-hearted conservative with no soul.

I''ve not said anything mean here directed to anyone, nor have I chosen to try to determine anyone''s standing, and look at what''s being determined about me. It''s really quite sad. But typical.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/27/2008 11:39:56 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

As is typical.


I thought long and hard before posting, because I knew I'd become labeled as some 'conservative/republican' because I don't agree with a man who can't reasonably state what he stands for in terms that he holds to. That's fine. Sure is judgmental, to say the least.


Yep, I'm insane. That must be it. I don't agree with some of the things Obama does or stands for or says (for the moment, at least) he wants to lead the country, or who he stood with (until oh-so recently), and I'm lacking sanity now.


I am an intelligent person and I have researched a lot about what the candidates are hoping to implement, if given the chance. I don't listen to the debates, as they are ridiculous and all I get from them (with said candidate) is that 'change' is what we need. Wow, thanks for explaining.


If he's someone you can stand behind, awesome. But just because he's not someone I choose to stand behind (ever), I'm not insane. Nor are the millions of people who don't think he is the leader we need in this country, which is a great, awesome country, and I can only hope and pray can remain that way. I'd take this country to any other, in a heartbeat.

Well, I didn't call you insane and I thought I asked you some legit questions but you ignored my post all together. Also, you kept saying that you don't know what change is and you wanted info so I directed you to info but now you are saying you have researched. So now I don't understand why you don't know what "change" is... I honestly don't care if people do not support Obama, but when they say they are against him I always ask why because I think that perhaps they have information that I do not. More often than not, however (and I'm not saying it is occurring in your case), they have heard false information which they take the heart (i.e. he's a closet racist toward whites, he's anti-American, he's an anti-Semite, or that he doesn't do the pledge of allegiance, etc etc), all of which has been proven FALSE. I would still like you to tell me what connections he has that makes him anti-American in your eyes.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/28/2008 3:44:22 AM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM

Author: coatimundi

''Illegal immigration'' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)


My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

Hee hee Coati, you made me giggle!

Ditto on that.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 3/28/2008 8:02:20 AM
Author: fisherofmengirly

And deciding someone is ''Right'' because they don''t agree with a Democratic front runner is what ''the Left'' does, too. It''s sad. I don''t have to agree with someone''s views, and not agreeing with them in no ways gives anyone the ability to therefore decide that I must be some radical conservative. I''m not.

But yeah, I''m used to this. If I''m not a totally hardcore liberal who says, ''let''s just throw all the revenues the country has at whatever comes to our minds,'' then I''m a mean, cold-hearted conservative with no soul.

I''ve not said anything mean here directed to anyone, nor have I chosen to try to determine anyone''s standing, and look at what''s being determined about me. It''s really quite sad. But typical.

Wait, don''t stereotype the stereotypers! (I support you fisher - just felt like making a funny).

 

[Rank Amateur]

Fisher - You are raging against the PS machine, but keep up the good work!

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 3/28/2008 8:02:20 AM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM

Author: coatimundi

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM

Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM


He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous 'economy stimulus' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I'm not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don't approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject 'change' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this 'change' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.



In a nutshell, that's the core of what I don't think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you're against Obama's $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush's $168 billion 'stimulus package?'


I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of 'trickle down' economics, you probably won't be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You're less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you're about to lose your house.


Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would 'coddle' 'illegals.' They can't! Their campaigns would be over if they did.


This 'issue' of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring 'illegals?' Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring 'illegal' workers to do jobs that many Americans would not 'stoop' to do!


'Illegal immigration' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)


And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won't be elected. He's not rich, he's not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.


'Who needs change when we've got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D's???'

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That's what the Right relies on.



My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

And deciding someone is 'Right' because they don't agree with a Democratic front runner is what 'the Left' does, too. It's sad. I don't have to agree with someone's views, and not agreeing with them in no ways gives anyone the ability to therefore decide that I must be some radical conservative. I'm not.


But yeah, I'm used to this. If I'm not a totally hardcore liberal who says, 'let's just throw all the revenues the country has at whatever comes to our minds,' then I'm a mean, cold-hearted conservative with no soul.


I've not said anything mean here directed to anyone, nor have I chosen to try to determine anyone's standing, and look at what's being determined about me. It's really quite sad. But typical.

Never said YOU specifically were Rightwing. It was a tangential observation that has nothing to do with you or your personal politics. I am merely commenting on the Right in general.

And I don't know if you've read my earlier posts in this thread, but I clearly stated that I'm no devotee of Obama.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 3/28/2008 7:54:29 AM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/28/2008 3:29:46 AM

Author: coatimundi

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM

Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM


He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous 'economy stimulus' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I'm not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don't approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject 'change' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this 'change' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.



In a nutshell, that's the core of what I don't think our country needs.

So, Fisherofmengirly, you're against Obama's $30 billion economic stimulus plan? Both Hillary and Obama have proposed such a plan. Were you opposed to Bush's $168 billion 'stimulus package?'


I think a plan to help out those hardest hit by the housing crisis makes a lot more sense then bailing out Bear Stearns, for example. But if you buy into the charade of 'trickle down' economics, you probably won't be in agreement. When you bail out banks, it helps...the banks. When you bail out people in need, especially in the case of the housing crisis, those people theoretically would use the money to pay their mortgages (if not already lost) which puts money directly back into the economy...back into the banks. You're less likely to run out and buy a new TV, when you're about to lose your house.


Immigration?? None of the candidates speak as though they would 'coddle' 'illegals.' They can't! Their campaigns would be over if they did.


This 'issue' of illegal immigration is just a lame excuse to detract voters from the REAL issues this country is facing. The Right is trying to convince voters that terrorists are going to come and get us via the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, corporations are outsourcing/offshoring making huge profits that the economy does not feel. How is that appreciably different from hiring 'illegals?' Hiring slave labor in China is worse for our economy than hiring 'illegal' workers to do jobs that many Americans would not 'stoop' to do!



'Illegal immigration' as a political platform is pure propaganda. (gotta love alliteration)


And you know, you really should watch the debates. When Dennis Kucinich, for example, in the early debates actually got to speak, he was extremely specific on what he would change, as President, which is precisely why he won't be elected. He's not rich, he's not corporate, and he would likely change this country for the better.


'Who needs change when we've got flat screen tvs, SUVs, and Mickey D's???'

Complacency + Fear = No Change. That's what the Right relies on.


My name is Coati, and I approve this message.

If the severe problems our country is facing due to illegal immigration isn't a 'real' issue, I have no idea what would be. I work for the government, and if you only had an inkling of the amount of fundage that goes into 'coddling' because that is exactly what it is, for illegal immigrants, it would make you sick. It would have to. I mean, I don't mind someone coming here for right reasons, because this country is amazing, I just hate to see it wasting away as people who don't take the appropriate actions to be here legally suck from the revenues and then make it just a hollow shell of what it was to begin with. If you're not putting into the funds to keep the country running, you don't need to be receiving the assistance the country is able to provide. That's just basic. And like I said, if that's not a 'real' issue, hmm.

How do you feel about offshoring/outsourcing?

What is creating a drain on the American economy?

What is flattening American worker's wages?

Illegal immigration and offshoring are methods used by multinationals and localized corporations to maximize their profits, which ultimately creates a cheaper less regulated product that ends up in the hands of the American consumer.

If corporations would pay US workers a living wage and protect US jobs, everyone would benefit.

If the illegal immigration laws were enforced properly, we wouldn't even be talking about this. The real question is:

"Why are they not being enforced?"

The answer?

The corporations want inordinately huge profits, and Americans want cheap goods.

This points out the hypocrisy in blaming people just like us (and I'm not saying you, Fisher, are specifically doing the blaming--just those who do) fleeing poverty from their own countries, when higher wages are openly offered by US companies.

If Americans would just pay a little more for a head of lettuce, they would be putting their money where their mouth is.


...and when I write about propaganda and fear, that has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration. The Right (not you Fisher) is using powerful propaganda to instill fear in the American people. It's just another guise for racism. Whenever there is a Chinese recall, for example, who do Americans blame? The Chinese--not the corporations who do the outsourcing. We are to blame for giving away the store. When US workers lose their jobs? Who do Americans blame? The illegal workers, of course! Not the companies that are hiring the "illegals."

What I am saying is that we need to look at the cause and not the symptoms.

 

[movie zombie]

you got it, coati: another instance of divide and conquer. as long as we bicker amongst ourselves, the politicians can keep being in the pockets of the corporations.

you left out one bit: NAFTA/GATT. the dumping of corn into mexico by our multinational corporations that get subsidies from the US government [read US taxpayer] were used in such a way to make it impossible for the mexican farmer to compete, forced him and his family off the land, and across our borders seeking work. the corporations have had it their way entirely too long.......and given that most americans only want to address the effect [illegal immigration] and not the cause means the problem will never be fixed.

i become livid when i read in other forums about people being angry about the welfare mother abusing the system: geez, look at the corporations! we don''t have a free enterprise system, it was socialized a long time ago and the rip off they accomplish is amazing....and then they get the best of both worlds: we the taxpayers get to bail them out again and again and again. anyone rember the savings and loan fiasco?

sorry for the rant.....i think its time for a cocktail.


movie zombie

 

[MoonWater]

Another ditto to what coati said.

This has been happening for ages in this country (xenophobia and nativism). People have always shown a willingness to turn on each other instead of those that are actually creating the poor situations they find themselves in. When the Irish first came, many early Americans didn't want them here because they were Roman Catholics. They suffered violence for years. However, when it came time to support the Emancipation Proclamation, the Irish opposed it out of fear that Blacks would compete for the unskilled work which was open to them. It didn't help matters that Blacks were used to break the longshoremen's strike in New York. Instead of turning their attention to the Whites that actually put them in that situation, the Irish commit violence against Blacks.

The same exact thing happened to the Chinese. In the 1860s Chinese labor was in high demand due to railroad work. They were willing to do the backbreaking work that Whites refused to do. Once the dangerous aspect of the work was complete, people no longer wanted to encourage Chinese immigration. It's at this time that Whites started to complain about their "strange" customs and religion. Of course the real issue had more to do with them being a threat in the labor force. By 1870, the Chinese had been used as strikebreakers. Employers were happy to pay the Chinese low wages (much like Mexican immigrants today) but labors (Americans) directed their resentment toward the Chinese (Mexicans) rather than against their compatriots (American corporations) willingness to exploit the Chinese (Mexicans).

Same crap, different century. People are always willing to turn against the poor folks that have little to no power when the real problem are the rich folks that retain most if not all the power. It's a lot easier to pick on the little guy than to fight and demand the rights we all deserve as human beings. It's a darn shame.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 3/29/2008 11:08:50 AM
Author: MoonWater
Another ditto to what coati said.


This has been happening for ages in this country (xenophobia and nativism). People have always shown a willingness to turn on each other instead of those that are actually creating the poor situations they find themselves in. When the Irish first came, many early Americans didn't want them here because they were Roman Catholics. They suffered violence for years. However, when it came time to support the Emancipation Proclamation, the Irish opposed it out of fear that Blacks would compete for the unskilled work which was open to them. It didn't help matters that Blacks were used to break the longshoremen's strike in New York. Instead of turning their attention to the Whites that actually put them in that situation, the Irish commit violence against Blacks.


The same exact thing happened to the Chinese. In the 1860s Chinese labor was in high demand due to railroad work. They were willing to do the backbreaking work that Whites refused to do. Once the dangerous aspect of the work was complete, people no longer wanted to encourage Chinese immigration. It's at this time that Whites started to complain about their 'strange' customs and religion. Of course the real issue had more to do with them being a threat in the labor force. By 1870, the Chinese had been used as strikebreakers. Employers were happy to pay the Chinese low wages (much like Mexican immigrants today) but labors (Americans) directed their resentment toward the Chinese (Mexicans) rather than against their compatriots (American corporations) willingness to exploit the Chinese (Mexicans).


Same crap, different century. People are always willing to turn against the poor folks that have little to no power when the real problem are the rich folks that retain most if not all the power. It's a lot easier to pick on the little guy than to fight and demand the rights we all deserve as human beings. It's a darn shame.

Well said, Moon! Well said.


MZ Thanks for including that about NAFTA/GATT. I become livid when I read about people bashing those who "abuse the welfare system", as well. Especially when the Federal government was just a cosigner on a loan to Chase to purchase Bear Stearns at fire sale prices. Chase made a killing when the stock prices rebounded. If that ain't welfare, I don't know what is!

The definition of welfare is the government giving money to specialized groups. Bush's tax cuts for the rich? WELFARE!

Now that's my morning rant!

I'm off to the Intergem show!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just for the record, I am registered unaffilitated. I don''t really see a candidate I want to vote for at this point, either. I don''t trust any politicians, really.

I am not particularly for the government bailing out corporations, but I am also not in favor of them bailing out people who overextended themselves on mortgages, either. Most of the defaults are because people are too ignorant to think about what happens in two years when that adjustable rate rises. The rules for borrowing need to be MUCH stricter. People get into credit card debt on top of the mortgages and just go bankrupt to get out of paying. Personal responsibility needs to be stressed rather than bailing anyone out..that goes for corporations AND individuals, as far as I am concerned.

I do think something has to be done to offer health care to those without health insurance. I just don''t want to see us lose the right to private, employer provided health insurance and medical services in the process.

I am not a socialist and never will be. I''d rather live with the problems of capitalism any day.

 

[MoonWater]

Thanks Coati!

Now for another article about the speech: Obama inspires racial dialogue in churches

 

[movie zombie]

and another: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-21/article/29530

movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

and from Alice Walker: http://www.theroot.com/id/45469

a must read for those that just don''t get it re why race matters.

i was born 4 years after ms walker and i remember the one family that dared to move into our central valley town in the 1960''s.....and being forced out of town in 3 weeks. i remember the son walking the high school halls with his eyes down casting his lowered eyes from side to side to see what trouble to avoid.....and i''ll never forget the look of gratitude he gave me when i smiled at him in passing.

movie zombie

movie zombie

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 3/31/2008 8:14:11 PM
Author: movie zombie
and from Alice Walker: http://www.theroot.com/id/45469

a must read for those that just don''t get it re why race matters.

i was born 4 years after ms walker and i remember the one family that dared to move into our central valley town in the 1960''s.....and being forced out of town in 3 weeks. i remember the son walking the high school halls with his eyes down casting his lowered eyes from side to side to see what trouble to avoid.....and i''ll never forget the look of gratitude he gave me when i smiled at him in passing.

movie zombie

movie zombie

Thanks for posting this - it was a good read. But I still don''t really get it - I mean, I appreciate her upbringing and the strife of her childhood from the 1940''s - but it bothers me that anyone would make assumptions about me or my family or label my "whiteness", just be seeing me walk down the street - without knowing the first thing about me. For the record, my mother grew up in extremely rural Appalachia (a place so remote, that her dialect is a almost a brogue)- and shared a similar poverty stricken childhood. Mom and Dad and 13 children in a 2 bedroom shack with no electricity or running water - and yes they never wore shoes (one of my mom''s brothers still lives in that shack - it does have electricity now). They ate a mostly vegetarian diet consisting of the vegetables they grew in their garden - all the children had to work in the field. When the food hit the table, you had to eat fast or you would go to bed hungry because the food went quickly. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. She has done well for herself, but she has not, to this day, ever taken a seat in a limo. How dare anyone tell me what my "whiteness" means.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/31/2008 8:14:11 PM
Author: movie zombie
and from Alice Walker: http://www.theroot.com/id/45469


a must read for those that just don't get it re why race matters.


i was born 4 years after ms walker and i remember the one family that dared to move into our central valley town in the 1960's.....and being forced out of town in 3 weeks. i remember the son walking the high school halls with his eyes down casting his lowered eyes from side to side to see what trouble to avoid.....and i'll never forget the look of gratitude he gave me when i smiled at him in passing.


movie zombie


movie zombie

Hey movie zombie, I think the article that Tim Wise wrote on this subject is better, did you read it? I forget the title, I think it was called "When Blacks Attack." I managed to figure out how to post a direct link: http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/whenblacksattack.html

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/1/2008 12:50:15 AM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 3/31/2008 8:14:11 PM

Author: movie zombie

and from Alice Walker: http://www.theroot.com/id/45469


a must read for those that just don''t get it re why race matters.


i was born 4 years after ms walker and i remember the one family that dared to move into our central valley town in the 1960''s.....and being forced out of town in 3 weeks. i remember the son walking the high school halls with his eyes down casting his lowered eyes from side to side to see what trouble to avoid.....and i''ll never forget the look of gratitude he gave me when i smiled at him in passing.


movie zombie


movie zombie

Thanks for posting this - it was a good read. But I still don''t really get it - I mean, I appreciate her upbringing and the strife of her childhood from the 1940''s - but it bothers me that anyone would make assumptions about me or my family or label my ''whiteness'', just be seeing me walk down the street - without knowing the first thing about me. For the record, my mother grew up in extremely rural Appalachia (a place so remote, that her dialect is a almost a brogue)- and shared a similar poverty stricken childhood. Mom and Dad and 13 children in a 2 bedroom shack with no electricity or running water - and yes they never wore shoes (one of my mom''s brothers still lives in that shack - it does have electricity now). They ate a mostly vegetarian diet consisting of the vegetables they grew in their garden - all the children had to work in the field. When the food hit the table, you had to eat fast or you would go to bed hungry because the food went quickly. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. She has done well for herself, but she has not, to this day, ever taken a seat in a limo. How dare anyone tell me what my ''whiteness'' means.

I highly recommend the Tim Wise article I just posted.

 

[movie zombie]

moon, scholarly but good article.

LAJennifer, you''re walking down the middle of the street and you have to get out of the middle of the street because of a large impassible hole in the pavement. you see two groups of teenagers coming towards you on opposite sides of the streets, one black and the other white. they''re dressed the same and walk the same. my guess is you decide to move to the side with the white kids....as would most white people.

i think that our whiteness is so deeply ingrained in us that we just can''t get it for the most part. for me it was going to trinidad and being in the minority there. it was also being discriminated against at the airport when i was entering the country. for the first time in my life i felt what it was to be a minority based on the color of my skin.

this country has never dealt with race issues.....and until we do, its always going to be a thorn in our democratic sides. until we do we''ll always make assumptions based on the color of skin.

movie zombie

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 4/1/2008 10:47:31 AM
Author: movie zombie
moon, scholarly but good article.

LAJennifer, you''re walking down the middle of the street and you have to get out of the middle of the street because of a large impassible hole in the pavement. you see two groups of teenagers coming towards you on opposite sides of the streets, one black and the other white. they''re dressed the same and walk the same. my guess is you decide to move to the side with the white kids....as would most white people.

No, see actually, I wouldn''t. I would move to the side of the street that was the most convenient. I learned from a very early age - that "Jesus loves the little children - all the children of the world - red and yellow black and white ..." I figured if Jesus does - then I should too. And it is assumptions like the one that you just made - that well . . .

No offense to you though, movie zombie.

 

[MoonWater]

I guess the real question comes down to, why take personal offense to something which you believe does not apply to you? Why, because it does not apply specifically to you, do you not understand how it may apply to your race generally? I just had this conversation with FF last night (who's white btw, I'm black), and I told him (not that he didn't already know), white people can afford to be colorblind, black people can not.

Why is it that when there is a pro-black initiative, white people think it means anti-white? White people often say, "Why do you need this? Why can't you just have something for everyone?" I think this is because white people take for granted that the things they view as "for everyone" are actually more for white people. To keep this simple, lets look at the entertainment business. Television/movies. You can have a sitcom or a comedy with a cast of only white folks (throw in a token black, asian, or hispanic), and white people think it's a movie/show for all. But if you have a show or movie with a predominently black cast, suddenly it's a show for black people. Even the studios treated films this way when it's time to market. If it's a predom black cast, it only gets advertised in urban areas, but the "white" movies get advertised everywhere. Sure the "black" movie is more likely to do better in urban areas, but by not even trying to promote it in any other way, you pigeonhole the film (and most of the time, the actors in the film).

Look at magazines. Cosmo, Elle, Marie Claire, Lucky are all viewed as magazines for all women. Ebony and Essence are viewed as black magazines.

When I was growing up, all the little black girls wanted the white barbie. Why? Because she was the REAL barbie.

All of this seems trivial, but these are the little things we grow up with that white people don't have to deal with. There is most definitely such a thing as white privilege. Do I believe every white person benefits from it, not necessarily, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

LAJennifer, I don't think you should be pissed off that you are being judged, I think you should be pissed off that as a collective, white people are oblivious to these things. You are not, that's awesome. Just like I'm considered "abnormal" in the black community for my willingness to understand more than my (black) side. But that doesn't mean I don't agree with Bill Cosby when he said black people need to get their sh*t together because they are ignoring all of the advantages that his generation (and the many before him) worked so hard for.

note: I rushed to type this out at work so pardon all errors or lack of articulation hehehe