Endorsing Obama

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
WASHINGTON Feb 21, 2007 (AP)— Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement Wednesday of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who said the White House hopeful "personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country."

Daschle said Obama has a "great capacity to unify our country and inspire a new generation of young Americans, just as I was inspired by the Kennedys and Martin Luther King when I was young."

Obama began his term in the Senate after Daschle lost his seat in 2004. But the South Dakotan served in the Senate with several of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and John Edwards, a former lawmaker.

Daschle said the party was "very fortunate to have an extraordinary field of candidates."


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2893029

-VG
 
Re: Breaking News! Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Endorses Obama

Oh shit, it's on now. The Clinton machine is gonna really start to play dirty now. I'm betting Obama is going to be a more formidable challenger to Hillary than people think. He's already got the liberals; if he can win over the independents, it could happen. Remember, there was a time when whites giving up power in South Africa was thought to be impossible. I'm telling ya, this is gonna be a helluva race. :yes:
 
Re: Breaking News! Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Endorses Obama

Interesting news I agree. I have a question

Is Daschle willing to campaign/fundraise aggressively for Obama???

Without those 2 elements the endorsement means nothing. This definately deserves further analysis. Thanks for the heads up
 
Re: Breaking News! Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Endorses Obama

ronmch20 said:
Oh shit, it's on now. The Clinton machine is gonna really start to play dirty now. I'm betting Obama is going to be a more formidable challenger to Hillary than people think. He's already got the liberals; if he can win over the independents, it could happen. Remember, there was a time when whites giving up power in South Africa was thought to be impossible. I'm telling ya, this is gonna be a helluva race. :yes:
Still real early in the game and a lot could happen but I agree with you.

Obama 08!

-VG
 
Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

Hawkish polical advisor and former Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezezinski has chosen to support Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008. What does this mean? Should we be alarmed?

Brzezinski Embraces Obama Over Clinton for President

52vfply.jpg


Janine Zacharia
Fri Aug 24, 3:24 PM ET


Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois senator has a better global grasp than his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.

Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,'' Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''

``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand,''......................Full Bloomberg/Yahoo Article
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

WOW!!!

Don't know what to say about this one.

Except that Brzenzinski's daughter, Mika will heard about it non-stop from Joe Scarborough and Co. of MSNBC's "MORNING JOE" on Monday.
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

Oh, Thanks for posting this article OB.
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

QueEx said:
Why should we be alarmed ???

QueEx

I've read somethings by Mr. Brzezinski over the years, not as much as I'd like to have. Most of my knowledge on him actually came out of Madeleine Albrights book 'Madam Secretary'.

But I get the sense that he's a bit of a hawk, opting for war at any cost. With the different statements made by Mr. Obama of late, coupled with the support and possible hawkish advise of Mr. Brzezinski, the fear could be that Barack would become or already is leaning toward being yet another Warrior President.

It may be wrong though...
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

I don't think Obama is really a hawk. I do think, however, that Obama is a pragmatist who realizes that being soft on defense has been a thorn in the democrats side for quite some time; and, considering the times in which we live (forget Iraq; there is still A.Q., and others), if a democrat wants to be the next president, he/she can't <u>appear</u> or <u>be</u> weak on defense. If there is a weakness (or a perceived weakness), it will send a message to many voters who might otherwise pull their ticket; and it will send the wrong message, IMO, to A.Q., other parties in the Middle East, South Asia, the Chinese and the Russians.

Assuming underneath it all Obama prefers dialogue and compassion; you can't successfully have either from a position of weakness. Its like having a gun but nobody believes or fears you will shoot; you probably won't or if you do you'll use it in the wrong situation just to prove em wrong. :smh:

QueEx
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

QueEx said:
I don't think Obama is really a hawk. I do think, however, that Obama is a pragmatist who realizes that being soft on defense has been a thorn in the democrats side for quite some time; and, considering the times in which we live (forget Iraq; there is still A.Q., and others), if a democrat wants to be the next president, he/she can't <u>appear</u> or <u>be</u> weak on defense. If there is a weakness (or a perceived weakness), it will send a message to many voters who might otherwise pull their ticket; and it will send the wrong message, IMO, to A.Q., other parties in the Middle East, South Asia, the Chinese and the Russians.

Assuming underneath it all Obama prefers dialogue and compassion; you can't successfully have either from a position of weakness. Its like having a gun but nobody believes or fears you will shoot; you probably won't or if you do you'll use it in the wrong situation just to prove em wrong. :smh:

QueEx

I think you're right.
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

QueEx said:
I don't think Obama is really a hawk. I do think, however, that Obama is a pragmatist who realizes that being soft on defense has been a thorn in the democrats side for quite some time; and, considering the times in which we live (forget Iraq; there is still A.Q., and others), if a democrat wants to be the next president, he/she can't <u>appear</u> or <u>be</u> weak on defense. If there is a weakness (or a perceived weakness), it will send a message to many voters who might otherwise pull their ticket; and it will send the wrong message, IMO, to A.Q., other parties in the Middle East, South Asia, the Chinese and the Russians.

Assuming underneath it all Obama prefers dialogue and compassion; you can't successfully have either from a position of weakness. Its like having a gun but nobody believes or fears you will shoot; you probably won't or if you do you'll use it in the wrong situation just to prove em wrong. :smh:

QueEx

I agree except that I think Obama has more "hawkish ways" than we think and in many ways more conservative in his views on family matters than the rest of the pack.

But on the post, that one is a pleasent surprise to me. Good job dropping that on Obadiah.

-VG
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

VG,

I won't disagree that Obama may be more hawkish than some might thing. That, I think, makes his comments on the use of military power more legitimate than some others. Some candidates are talking the talk, but many fear they won't walk the walk, when needed. I believe Obama is serious about "talking" as well -- which could mean (we'll know more as campaigning proceeds) that he is more balanced/nuanced.

QueEx
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

VegasGuy said:
I agree except that I think Obama has more "hawkish ways" than we think and in many ways more conservative in his views on family matters than the rest of the pack.

But on the post, that one is a pleasent surprise to me. Good job dropping that on Obadiah.

-VG
he's boys with Lieberman on the DL - you are correct about him
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

ZB is a major player in DC.

If he supporting Obama, there might be others who will support him too.

Peace.
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

Obadiah Plainman said:
I've read somethings by Mr. Brzezinski over the years, not as much as I'd like to have. Most of my knowledge on him actually came out of Madeleine Albrights book 'Madam Secretary'.

But I get the sense that he's a bit of a hawk, opting for war at any cost. With the different statements made by Mr. Obama of late, coupled with the support and possible hawkish advise of Mr. Brzezinski, the fear could be that Barack would become or already is leaning toward being yet another Warrior President.

It may be wrong though...


I don't think he's hawkish as much as a realist. He just wrote a long article/commentary in The American Spectator (or The American Prospect, I lose track, too many subscriptions) with a common sense, realistic approach to regain American respect in the Middle East. He's known as one of the smartest men in Washington. If he picks Obama, that may make some who have written him off or ignored him to give him a look.
 
Re: Brzezinski Picks Obama Over Clinton

I'm Rolling With Obama.
 
CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

<font size="5"><center>Castro: Obama </font size>- clinton<font size="5"> ‘Invincible’</font size></center>

29blog-castro.jpg


New York Times
By Sarah Wheaton
August 30, 2007

Yes, that’s right, the Cuban dictator, whose status as alive or dead is currently a matter of dispute, is joining the ranks of the professional political oracles in his latest analysis of the United States presidential election. And he has good news for Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, rivals for the Democratic nomination.

“Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for president and Obama for vice president,” said an editorial column attributed to Mr. Castro, who has been too ill to make public appearances for over a year. He said that to win Florida, the “prize everyone aspires to,” candidates must gain the support of the Cuban exile community by calling for a democratic government in the Caribbean island nation.

In the piece, which appeared in Granma, Cuba’s Communist Party newspaper, Mr. Castro also predicted that former Vice President Al Gore would not jump into the race and declared that President Bush needed “electoral fraud” to win Florida.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/castro-clinton-obama-invincible/
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

<font size="7">
<center>


R E A L L Y

? ? ?

</font size>

</center>

 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton




<font size="5"><center>Right-wing media continue to repeat
false claim that Castro endorsed
Clinton and Obama</font size></center>


Media Matters
Aug 30, 2007

<font size="3">Summary: CNN's Glenn Beck and Fox News' Dagen
McDowell repeated the false claim that Cuban
dictator Fidel Castro had given an "endorsement"
to Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton
(D-NY) in a Cuban newspaper column. But nowhere
in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama;
to the contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama
a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and
he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making
politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday
afternoon." </font size>

On the August 29 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro had given an "endorsement" to Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in an August 28 column in the Cuban newspaper Granma. Beck's guest, radio talk show host and former Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick, echoed Beck's assertion, claiming that Castro "thinks" Clinton or Obama "would be a good president." Similarly, on the August 29 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Dagen McDowell falsely claimed that Obama and Clinton "rack[ed] up another endorsement today, this one coming straight from Cuba's Fidel Castro." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama; to the contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."

Further, on Beck's program, Patrick falsely claimed that Obama advocated "attacking" Pakistan and, without offering any evidence, asserted that "terrorists" supported the Democrats in the 2004 election.

Beck asserted that Castro's editorial was "probably not the endorsement that either candidate was looking for" and asked: "Do you remember a time when an endorsement from Castro would have killed a campaign faster than the good old-fashioned Dean scream?" Patrick then asserted that Castro's article marks "the best day that ... the Republicans running for president have had in a long time," later adding that "I don't think the Cuban population in Miami is really going to go out and actively work for someone that Fidel Castro thinks would be a good president."

On Your World, McDowell, who also serves as a Fox News business correspondent, asked if "support from the dictator [will] hurt donations" to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Republican strategist Margaret Hoover said "it helps Republicans" and that "the best thing for a Republican is for Hillary and Obama to go ahead and embrace this endorsement."

Yet, in his Granma column, Castro described a potential Clinton-Obama presidential ticket as "seemingly invincible," but he did not endorse either candidate. From Castro's column:

Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon.

The media declares that this would be essential, unless Gore decides to run. I don't think he will do so; better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course. When he was a candidate, he of course committed the error of yearning for "a democratic Cuba".

Enough of tales and nostalgia. This is written simply to increase the conscience of the Cuban people.


As Media Matters noted Fox News previously reported the false claim that Castro had endorsed Clinton and Obama. During an August 29 Fox & Friends segment discussing Castro's column, on-screen text falsely asserted, "CASTRO'S DREAM TEAM: WANTS CLINTON AND OBAMA IN '08" and an on-screen graphic depicted Castro, Clinton, and Obama enclosed in a red heart. And during the August 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Michelle Malkin previewed an upcoming segment by falsely claiming that "Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket."

Additionally, Patrick claimed that Obama "really hurt himself with his naiveté on international affairs," adding that Obama suggested "attacking Pakistan whether they want us there or not." In fact, in his August 1 foreign policy speech, Obama did not say he would "attack[]" Pakistan. Rather, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistan] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama has since pointed out that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan."

Patrick also asserted that Castro's purported "endorsement" of Obama and Clinton "is like when the terrorists kind of came out, you know, before the Bush election in support of the Democrats." Patrick may have been referring to a taped message released by Osama bin Laden in October 2004, which many conservative media figures cited as evidence that bin Laden preferred then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. But as Media Matters for America noted, according to investigative reporter Ron Suskind's book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster, 2006), the CIA determined that bin Laden's message was intended to assist in the re-election of President Bush.

From the August 29 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:


BECK: Coming up, Fidel Castro declares Clinton-Obama the winning ticket for the 2008 election. Do you remember -- do you remember the time when an endorsement from a ruthless dictator was a bad thing? Oh, those were the days.

[...]

BECK: Now, I'm guessing it's probably not the endorsement that either candidate was looking for, but it seems Cuban dictator Fidel Castro cannot deny the, quote, "seemingly invincible ticket of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008."

I don't know. Maybe it's just me. Do you remember a time when an endorsement from Castro would have killed a campaign faster than the good old-fashioned Dean scream? Oh, those really were the days.

Dan Patrick, Texas state senator, now talk show host for KSEV-FM in Houston. Dan -- an endorsement from Castro.

PATRICK: You know, Glenn, this is -- this reminds me of what the military is saying. Supposedly, Chelsea Clinton was in Afghanistan and asked one of the soldiers what are the three things that concerned them most, and the soldier said, "Osama, Obama, and yo mama." So, I have a sense that --

BECK: See, I don't -- I don't believe that. I think that was just a joke.

PATRICK: Yeah, I don't think that really happened, but it could've happened.

BECK: Right. It could have, sure.

PATRICK: It could've happened.

BECK: It didn't.

PATRICK: Yeah, and this is the best day that Rudy and Fred, if he gets in the race, and Mitt and the rest of the Republicans running for president have had in a long time, because, seriously, Glenn, in -- you know, in the nation, Cubans only represent less than a percent of the population. But in Florida, the state of hanging chads -- and a state that, with Ohio or West Virginia, could determine the next election -- they're about 5 percent of the electorate.

And I don't think the Cuban population, in Miami, is really going to go out and actively work for someone that Fidel Castro thinks would be a good president.

BECK: So, let me ask you this, Dan, because I -- you know, I agree with you on Florida, but what has happened to us where we don't call China "Red China" anymore? Or that we don't -- that communism is such a joke and socialism is so acceptable now? Just whatever. What happened to us?

PATRICK: Well, I don't know who "we" is, because I don't think that applies to you. It doesn't apply to me. I don't think it applies to most Americans. I think that this is like when the terrorists kind of came out, you know, before the Bush election in support of the Democrats. It may have given Bush a few points.

I mean, this is -- I don't think it's a joke. I think that it underscores what our enemies -- and Fidel Castro is an enemy -- I think this underscores who they would like to see in the White House. And they don't want to see a conservative in the White House or a Republican.

And I still think most Americans think that red is still red and communism is not good. And I think you're right. I don't think either one likes this endorsement.

What I really think this sets up, though, Glenn, is I go around the state of Texas and talk to people around the country, there is this thinking that this is the ticket -- and I'm not so sure. I think Barack Obama has really hurt himself --

BECK: Yeah.

PATRICK: -- with his naiveté on international affairs. You know, attacking Pakistan whether they want us in there or not, not using nuclear weapons, sitting down, you know, to have tea with our enemy.

And does America really want a VP a heartbeat away from the president that is that naive?

And so Hillary has a problem. If she doesn't put him on the ticket, she alienates the African-American voters in America. If she does put him on the ticket, it will make some people sit back and think, is this going too far?

I mean, it's one thing making fun of Dan Quayle because he couldn't spell potato. He was really qualified, and he was ridiculed by the media. It's another thing to have what appears to be someone who is totally naive about how to deal with terror as vice president of the United States.

BECK: Dan, I appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time, sir.

PATRICK: Thanks, Glenn.

BECK: I will say -- just one more thing, America. He also said that Jimmy Carter was the best president we ever had. And Hillary and Obama are really not his first choice. Al Gore would be his first choice.​

From the August 29 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:


McDOWELL: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama racking up another endorsement today, this one coming straight from Cuba's Fidel Castro. Will support from the dictator hurt donations to their campaigns? Republican strategist Margaret Hoover says yes but Democratic strategist Bob Beckel disagrees. Well, Margaret, to you first: help or hurt?

HOOVER: I think it helps Republicans that she's doing this because the best way to get every Cuban American in Miami to send $20 to the Republican nominee is to shore up Fidel Castro's support. They want nothing more than to distance themselves from him. So, the best thing that -- the best thing for a Republican is for Hillary and Obama to go ahead and embrace this endorsement.​

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708300009?f=h_latest
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

Further, on Beck's program, Patrick falsely claimed that Obama advocated "attacking" Pakistan and, without offering any evidence, asserted that "terrorists" supported the Democrats in the 2004 election

Not sure what mediamatters is talking about, I heard Obama actually say he would go in to get Osama in Pakistan. But so what. Who gives a shit what Castro's opinion is on american politics? At least I sure as hell don't.

I have enough work to do just dealing with bullshit party politics here to give a fuck what some old, dried up bastard from another country thinks. He needs to give up the reigns and go the fuck away and let someone else handle Cuba.

One party rule Always suck.

-VG
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

VegasGuy said:
One party rule Always suck.

-VG
A lot of people would argue thats what we have in here.
The segregationist George Wallace once said: "Republicans
Democrats, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between
them."

QueEx
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

QueEx said:
A lot of people would argue thats what we have in here.
The segregationist George Wallace once said: "Republicans
Democrats, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between
them."

QueEx

Well, we are quoting segregationists now. Alllrighty then! lol.

I get your point but even if there is only 9 cents worth of difference, there is at least that difference. Cuba is still one person/family rule. So castro could shut the hell up. If he made the quote that is. Personally I think he's probably feeble and high on prescription drugs.

-VG
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

VegasGuy said:
Not sure what mediamatters is talking about, I heard Obama actually say he would go in to get Osama in Pakistan. But so what. Who gives a shit what Castro's opinion is on american politics? At least I sure as hell don't.

I have enough work to do just dealing with bullshit party politics here to give a fuck what some old, dried up bastard from another country thinks. He needs to give up the reigns and go the fuck away and let someone else handle Cuba.

One party rule Always suck.

-VG

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QPsPZqPnUOc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QPsPZqPnUOc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>​

"…If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and president Musharraf will not act, we will."

CSPAN had Neil Boortz’s show simulcast on Thursday and he mention that Castro gave a Clinton, Obama ticket an endorsement. Any one with an ioda of common sense would question a statement such as this, especially when it makes the republican talk show talking points rounds. This is the same tactics the conservatives used when that un-sourced comment traced back to the right wing Insight web site accused Obama of attending a radical Muslim Madrasah. First it was Glen Beck putting out, and then it was Faux Snooze repeating it, then Michael Savage ran with the lie. It’s becoming beyond laughable the way republicans are trying to throw innuendo and lies up against the wall hoping that they find something, anything that will get their hypocrisy deflected away.
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

thoughtone said:
"…If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and president Musharraf will not act, we will."

CSPAN had Neil Boortz’s show simulcast on Thursday and he mention that Castro gave a Clinton, Obama ticket an endorsement. Any one with an ioda of common sense would question a statement such as this, especially when it makes the republican talk show talking points rounds. This is the same tactics the conservatives used when that un-sourced comment traced back to the right wing Insight web site accused Obama of attending a radical Muslim Madrasah. First it was Glen Beck putting out, and then it was Faux Snooze repeating it, then Michael Savage ran with the lie. It’s becoming beyond laughable the way republicans are trying to throw innuendo and lies up against the wall hoping that they find something, anything that will get their hypocrisy deflected away.

I appreciate it but please don't get me in the middle of your right wing / left wing conserns because I am of neither party and dislike both for the damage I believe they have done to us.

The fact is BOTH parties play this game and all it turns out to be is delaying tactics to eat up valuable issues conversation. It happened with the bullshit document on Bush via CBS in the last election and I thought that was transparant and foul. Now republicans are using Obama's comment like that shit is so important when it ain't.

It's the tactic both parties use to demonstrate to us what issues THEY themselves are choosing for us to discuss and Katrina is now a damn political football but that shit is so serious I can't tell you.

Strangly enough, you don't hardly hear global warming at all anymore because I think it's something no one can address and not sound like an idiot when the questions hit them on it.

We got serious issues and need serious people to have that conversation with.

We also need some blueprint for how this shit will get done, beginning wth gettng the damn government out of my wallet. Fixing the tax code so I can purchase my own damn health insurance for my family. Making it easier to move kids out of failing schools to schools that might better equip them for future success. Iraq won't go away anytime soon and like you said, anyone with an iota of sense knows this. So it's a non-issue or at least an issue I don't care to discuss.

-VG
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

VegasGuy said:
I appreciate it but please don't get me in the middle of your right wing / left wing conserns because I am of neither party and dislike both for the damage I believe they have done to us.

The fact is BOTH parties play this game and all it turns out to be is delaying tactics to eat up valuable issues conversation. It happened with the bullshit document on Bush via CBS in the last election and I thought that was transparant and foul. Now republicans are using Obama's comment like that shit is so important when it ain't.

It's the tactic both parties use to demonstrate to us what issues THEY themselves are choosing for us to discuss and Katrina is now a damn political football but that shit is so serious I can't tell you.

Strangly enough, you don't hardly hear global warming at all anymore because I think it's something no one can address and not sound like an idiot when the questions hit them on it.

We got serious issues and need serious people to have that conversation with.

We also need some blueprint for how this shit will get done, beginning wth gettng the damn government out of my wallet. Fixing the tax code so I can purchase my own damn health insurance for my family. Making it easier to move kids out of failing schools to schools that might better equip them for future success. Iraq won't go away anytime soon and like you said, anyone with an iota of sense knows this. So it's a non-issue or at least an issue I don't care to discuss.

-VG

Have you heard of the new Leonardo DiCaprio environmental film, The 11th Hour? If you watch over-the-air and cable television and listen to AM right wing radio talk shows you won’t hear too much about global warming, because they are corporately controlled. Ironically Sonny Perdue, the republican Governor of Georgia is replacing most of the state’s park vehicles to electric. He said “let’s assume that global warming is real, we must prepare to do something.” A token effort, sure, but even he has to acknowledge that it does exist, amongst his right wing, constituents.
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

thoughtone said:
Have you heard of the new Leonardo DiCaprio environmental film, The 11th Hour? If you watch over-the-air and cable television and listen to AM right wing radio talk shows you won’t hear too much about global warming, because they are corporately controlled. Ironically Sonny Perdue, the republican Governor of Georgia is replacing most of the state’s park vehicles to electric. He said “let’s assume that global warming is real, we must prepare to do something.” A token effort, sure, but even he has to acknowledge that it does exist, amongst his right wing, constituents.

No I have not heard about it but you gotta know up front, you cannot sell me based on a fictional movie. My standards are a bit higher than the play button on a VCR.

I'm here to tell you that environmental bullshit is simply another money grab.

Once it was an Ozone hole they got everybody all excited about it to the point that Bush Sr. signed law making it expensive to get Co2 to put in your damn car's AC.

Before that it was some shit about sun spots and the effects it was having on earth. How the sun was getting hotter and government assholes were scrambling to fix the sun.

Another time it was global cooling, ice age shit.

Before that it was nuclear winter, another time it was this paranoia that during the gulf war, if those fleeing iraqis were to set those oil wells on fire, we would all be fucked because there were so many. Man would be unable to stop them and the skies would be black from the sut, the trees would not get sun, the planet would die. Remember all that bullshit those actors, politicians and talking heads on the right and left were running around with?

Well, you may not because you seem to be more affected by pop culture than I am.

So what happened?

The oil wells did go up in flames. They said man could not put them out and the result would be an "environmental holocaust".

Wells were all capped and put out in about 3 weeks. No holocaust. On to the next bullshit cause celeb.

Here comes global warming / climate change. New game same bullshit.

I mean look, if a governor who votes with a left or right wing party, he is still one vote and one opinion. or if decapiro did this film for, (assuming) no money (I assume he was paid) to sell some ill conceived idea, he is still just acting out of emotion and still only one opinion.

Why you even tossed his name out is still puzzling since I was not aware he was degreed in ANYTHING or that the dude even finished high school.

(did you subscribe to this net theory that Bush did steer those hurricanes into NO too?)

-VG
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

VegasGuy said:
No I have not heard about it but you gotta know up front, you cannot sell me based on a fictional movie. My standards are a bit higher than the play button on a VCR.

I'm here to tell you that environmental bullshit is simply another money grab.

Once it was an Ozone hole they got everybody all excited about it to the point that Bush Sr. signed law making it expensive to get Co2 to put in your damn car's AC.

Before that it was some shit about sun spots and the effects it was having on earth. How the sun was getting hotter and government assholes were scrambling to fix the sun.

Another time it was global cooling, ice age shit.

Before that it was nuclear winter, another time it was this paranoia that during the gulf war, if those fleeing iraqis were to set those oil wells on fire, we would all be fucked because there were so many. Man would be unable to stop them and the skies would be black from the sut, the trees would not get sun, the planet would die. Remember all that bullshit those actors, politicians and talking heads on the right and left were running around with?

Well, you may not because you seem to be more affected by pop culture than I am.

So what happened?

The oil wells did go up in flames. They said man could not put them out and the result would be an "environmental holocaust".

Wells were all capped and put out in about 3 weeks. No holocaust. On to the next bullshit cause celeb.

Here comes global warming / climate change. New game same bullshit.

I mean look, if a governor who votes with a left or right wing party, he is still one vote and one opinion. or if decapiro did this film for, (assuming) no money (I assume he was paid) to sell some ill conceived idea, he is still just acting out of emotion and still only one opinion.

Why you even tossed his name out is still puzzling since I was not aware he was degreed in ANYTHING or that the dude even finished high school.

(did you subscribe to this net theory that Bush did steer those hurricanes into NO too?)

-VG

Is this science fiction? What do they know, it was only signed by Nobel laureates. But of course conservative speculators know more about the environment than scientist. Just ask Crandall Canyon mine owner Robert Murray!

source: Union of Concerned Scientists

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.

INTRODUCTION



Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.


THE ENVIRONMENT



The environment is suffering critical stress:



The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.



Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.



Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.



Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.



Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.



Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks
are very great.



Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.



Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.

POPULATION



The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.



Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.



No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.


WARNING



We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.


WHAT WE MUST DO



Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:



We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.


We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.


We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.



We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.



We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.



We must stabilize population.

This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.



We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.


DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW



The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.



Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic, and environmental collapse.



Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.



A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.


The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.​
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

VegasGuy said:
Follow the money dude. Just follow the money. If you know how.

-VG

Even if some choose to make being environment friendly about "the money", what is so terribly wrong with taking care of the the earth?
 
Re: CASTRO PICKS OBAMA clinton

divine said:
Even if some choose to make being environment friendly about "the money", what is so terribly wrong with taking care of the the earth?

Because there is more money in fucking it up than to protect it.

Big pharma would rather make money selling people drugs, feed people cheap processed foods and treat them for preventable diseases’ rather than getting them to lead a healthier life style. Big corporations are determined to make money at any expense.
 
Oprah Stumps For Obama while Hillary totes mommy

Oprah Electrifies Crowd in Iowa for Barack Obama, While Hillary Clinton Turns to Family

Saturday , December 08, 2007

Oprah Winfrey electrified an Iowa audience Saturday as she hit the stump for Barack Obama, telling the crowd she decided to make her first endorsement in a presidential campaign out of a belief that Obama has a "new vision" for the country.

The billionaire talk show host, whose emphatic address was frequently interrupted by applause and cheers from likely fans, came to the Des Moines rally as part of a three-state tour with the Illinois senator. As she, Obama and Obama's wife Michelle kicked off the events, Obama's top rival Hillary Clinton also swept through Iowa, at stops with her daughter, Chelsea, and 88-year-old mother, Dorothy Rodham.

Clinton often campaigns on her experience in Washington, D.C., but Winfrey was not afraid to take a subtle swipe at that argument Saturday. She told the Des Moines audience that "the amount of time you spent in Washington means nothing unless you're accountable" for your decisions.

"For the first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and speak for the man that I believe has a new vision for America," Winfrey said. "I am not here to tell you what to think. I am here to ask you to think, seriously."

Winfrey said she was nervous and felt out "of my terrain," but that she didn't make any predictions for the effect her endorsement would have on the race.

"So much has been said about what my jumping in to this arena does or does not bring to the table of politics. I really don't know," she said. "Despite all of the talk, the speculation and the hype, I understand the difference between a book club ... and this critical moment in our nation's history."

Obama hopes the talk show host's star power will lend him access to a broader cross-section of voters. The campaign distributed 23,000 tickets for the Des Moines event and more than 10,000 for another later in Cedar Rapids. Thousands of people, many who don't normally participate in politics, came into his offices, volunteered and attended caucus trainings to score tickets.

The campaign said 18,500 people showed up in Des Moines.

From Iowa they head to New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The campaign just announced that Arrested Development will headline the pre-program show in Columbia, S.C., on Sunday. The event had to be moved earlier in the week from an 18,000-seat basketball arena to a football stadium that holds 80,000, just to accommodate the crowd. The campaign doesn’t expect to fill Williams-Brice Stadium, but officials are anticipating big numbers. The campaign ran out of the free tickets for the old venue just two days after it began distributing them — tickets will no longer be needed.

The Obama campaign has said it’s filled its Sunday event with Winfrey at the Verizon Wireless Arena in Manchester, N.H., which holds close to 12,000 people.

But Clinton has been heading off the much-anticipated Oprah tour at every turn. Her mother-daughter team accompanied her Saturday, and Bill Clinton campaigned for his wife in South Carolina as well, promoting her health care plan, one day before Winfrey arrives with Obama.

"We're getting close to the caucuses," Hillary Clinton said. "I always think it's better to go to the caucuses with a buddy. Today, I've got some buddies with me."

As for Obama's buddies, the question is whether Winfrey's immense popularity will translate into votes. The media mogul and talk-show host, who can single-handedly anoint a writer into a best-selling author, has never endorsed a presidential candidate, but she's gone headlong into this endeavor. A glitzy fundraiser held at her California estate in September raked in $3 million for the candidate.

Asked about the Oprah factor at a deli in Des Moines, Clinton gave a non-answer.

"I'm having fun. I'm not going to eat this whole thing with all of you watching, though," she said while eating breakfast with her mother and daughter.

Clinton, who has been endorsed by Barbra Streisand, later said celebrity endorsements are just one factor voters consider.

"At the end of the day it’s a choice among those of us who are running," she said. "And I think most voters understand that, and they sort it all out. They make up their decisions."

Clinton said her daughter's appearance on the campaign trail was already planned far in advance of this weekend, and defended her record in office in response to Winfrey's experience comments.

Obama said Saturday he was grateful to have Winfrey in his corner.

"You want Oprah as vice president?" he asked the crowd. "That would be a demotion, you understand that?"

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in September showed that 60 percent of those polled thought she would help Obama's candidacy — but only 15 percent said they were more likely to support Obama because of her. Sixty-nine percent said Winfrey would have no effect on their vote.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a national co-chairman for Hillary Clinton, has brushed off the Winfrey appearances.

"I'm not sure who watches her," he told The Washington Times in late November. "Maybe young moms, maybe people who are retired. But we have the support of most retired Democrats."

But Obama is creeping up on Clinton.

A recent ABC/Washington Post poll of 592 likely voters conducted from Nov. 29 to Dec. 3 showed Clinton's lead in New Hampshire diminishing. The poll showed Clinton with 35 percent and Obama closing in with 29 percent.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards pulled 17 percent in the poll. If she can keep her lead, the Jan. 8 Granite State primary would be a potential fallback for Clinton should she fair poorly in Iowa on Jan. 3.

Recent Iowa polls show Clinton, Edwards and Obama close together at the top, with Obama leading in several.

A new AP-Ipsos poll, however, showed virtually no change nationally in the Democratic race from last month. In the survey, Clinton kept about a 2-to-1 lead over Obama, 45 percent to 23 percent, with John Edwards at 12 percent. The poll interviewed 1,009 adults nationally and was conducted from Dec. 3 to Dec. 5.

FOX News' Molly Henneberg, Aaron Bruns and Bonney Kapp and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

-VG
 
Back
Top