Stuart G
Stuart G's JournalThis distancing oneself from the chosen candidate happened before. but we were right..read on.
I am postitive we were right then, and history proved it. What a waste of a milion lives.or more.Viet Nam..
The Democrats nominated in 1972, a man who would have pulled us out immediately. George McGovern. There were mistakes made, lots of them. I worked my ass in that election, day after day
, house to house. Passed out lots of literature in the cold fall in Chicago in 72... I dressed up in a suit and tie each day..short hair cut too. Talked to lots of Democrats that were voting for the Republican. Couldn't convince them..I felt miserable when the votes came in.
cause I thought deep in my heart we were right..and we were..
What is there to say..We tried to stop that insane war..But many were against us. They distanced themselves from our candidate. people who were running on the Democratic ticket..
An honest decent man who created the foodstamp program..cared about life and death..George McGovern..
Romney on the other hand, is being distanced from some candidates. He cares about money and profits like the rest of the Republicans. It is just that he let everyone know the truth..
... Too bad Republicans you are stuck. you can go to hell..
.. Romney doesn't have one tenth of the integrity that McGovern has in his finger nail in his small finger. The Republicans earned this turd and I am happy for us. And history will never prove them correct as history did with McGovern. I still have tremendous respect for him. He tried to do the right thing and it was almost impossible..but we tried.
Oh, Our opponent that year was Richard Nixon..History proved what a crook he was, although he won, he was forced to resign..let's see..Watergate..something about, "I am not a crook" remember?? So history and congress which was ready to impeach him, proved us correct. Had to make that clear. And the war has been proven to be a complete waste too...
Why Obama Will Win
Obama will win because underneath it all, he always thinks about others , and how his decisions will affect others.
Romney thinks only himself, and how it will affect him.
Morning Joe On The Entire Muslim World: 'They Hate Us Because of Their Religion
Source: Think Progresss
Joe Scarborough On The Entire Muslim World: ‘They Hate Us Because Of Their Religion’
By Judd Legum on Sep 17, 2012 at 8:58 am
This morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough accused every single person in Muslim and Arab world of hating the United States. According to Scarborough, “if you scratch the surface, and if you gave every street vendor to prime minister in that region a chance to throw a rock at the U.S. embassy, they would.”
Scarborough added: “You know why they hate us? They hate us because of their religion, they hate us because of their culture, and they hate us because of peer pressure.” He said that anyone who believes “we’re going to go over there and change them” is “naive.”
Scarborugh’s Islamophobic diatribe encountered little resistance on the set of Morning Joe. His co-host Mika Brzezinski responded in apparent agreement, “look what is happening in Afghanistan 11 years later.”
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/09/17/856741/joe-scarborough-on-the-entire-muslim-world-they-hate-us-because-of-their-religion/
So, I have lost all respect for this racist..every once in a while he says something ok, and sounds ok..
But this one. how fucken sad that a so called "intelligent" person could say this on national TV.."every" is all...all is all
What a jerk...words cannot express my disgust.
Scott Brown, 'Crystal Clear' No, "on Just Saving Middle Class Tax Cuts.
Source: Huffington Post
Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign is pouncing on fresh statements by Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) that he's a ;crystal clear vote against the Democrats' plan to preserve the Bush-era tax cuts just on income under $250,000.
Brown voted against the Senate Democrats' bill in July.
Brown has insisted he would vote only for extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, including those for the 2 percent of Americans earning more than $250,000. But Boston radio host Jim Braude still brought it up on Friday on his radio show, asking if Brown would reconsider at the last second if saving the tax breaks, which expire at the end of the year, for the other 98 percent of Americans were the only option available. Brown reaffirmed his opposition in no uncertain terms.
It's December 31 Braude posed the scenario. 'The only thing that is before you on the Bush tax cuts is an extension for people under $250,000, so you would be raising taxes [if the bill failed]
You'll vote no against it ; Braude pressed as Brown hedged a bit before finally answering.
Crystal clear. No, Brown said, contending that he was not going to be the candidate that's gonna be -- the first thing is raise your taxes
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/scott-brown-tax-cuts_n_1884687.html
Farther down in the article, he says that..$"100,000 is not middle income."
Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
______________________________________________________________________________________
He really said this on national television...???
Romney Tries to Defend Embassy Lies
ce: Huff Post, New York Mag
Romney Tries to Defend Embassy Lies
Mitt Romney created his most recent campaign shitstorm by launching an attack that was, simultaneously, an absurdly disingenuous argument built upon a series of demonstrable lies. After an initial period of recrimination and lashing out at the media, Romney and his allies are insisting that he was absolutely correct all along. It is a remarkable testament to the party’s ability not just to engage in spin but create and sustain an alternate reality.
On Monday night, Romney issued this condemnation of Obama: “It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” The lies here are several: The statement was issued by an embassy staffer, not by Obama; It did not express sympathy with attackers; and it was not a “response” to the attacks but in fact preceded them.
Even if you strip out all the lies, the broader argument that Romney is now trying to wage is so completely silly he doesn’t believe it himself. The general thrust of Romney’s attack is that Obama has taken some unusual step by condemning the inflammatory anti-Muslim movie that sparked the protests in the Middle East, and that he, Romney, would refuse to acknowledge any of the protestors' legitimate grievances. In fact, even under the Bush administration it was completely standard diplomatic practice to pair up defenses of the free speech principle with condemnations of provocative attacks on religion. And in his interview with Stephanopolous, Romney — after defending his pack of lies — is forced to admit that he, too, condemns the movie:
Read more: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/romney-tries-to-defend-embassy-lies.html
A day or two after the Oklahoma bombing, two Muslim students came up after class.
Mc Veigh hadn't been identified as the culprit. It was mentioned in the news that it might have been done by Muslims.
I taught in a mixed school at the time, all kinds of people from all over, really an accident of location of this particular neighborhood school rather than any kind of plan. This mix of people fom all over the world just happened in a Chicago neighborhood. So the local high school had that mix too.
So, two of my best students came up, and they said to me, We are Muslims, we don't believe in this kind of violnce." It was not our people. It is not our religion." They said. It was a high school U.S.Hirtory class.
...That was 17 years ago, and I will never forget it. I knew then as I know now, it is such a small minority that would kill, just as it is a small minority of other religions that would kill.
Runner that First Questioned Paul Ryans Time Speaks Out
Source: Yahoo News, Lets Run.com
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News
Political Reporter
PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 2 hrs 3 mins ago
When Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said during an August radio interview that he once ran a marathon in less than three hours, North Carolina runner Bill Walker was impressed, but wanted more details.
The 63-year-old attorney, who has run four sub-three-hour marathons since college, posted a simple question on a message board for LetsRun.com, a national online forum for runners. ;In an Aug. 22 interview by Hugh Hewitt, Representative Ryan said he had run a marathon in 'two hour and fifty something,' ; Walker wrote on the message board. ";Does anyone know the marathon and the year?"
In little time, hundreds of skeptical runners on the message board started questioning Ryan's claim that his best marathon time was two hour and fifty something The thread went viral. The day after Walker posted his question, Runner's World writer Scott Douglas started examining it. Turns out Ryan never ran a marathon in that time; a campaign spokesman was forced to walk back the comment.
And it wall started with one question on a message board. ".I just wanted to know,"
Walker said in an interview posted Wednesday on LetsRun.com. " If he had really run a marathon in that range, I would be impressed because I know the effort that goes into a sub-three-hour marathon. But, if he was lying or really stretching the truth, I thought that would be significant since he had just been nominated to run for Vice-President on the Republican ticket."
Walker says he is a registered Republican, but will be voting for President Barack Obama in November._
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
further down in the article Walker is quoted as saying this about was he surpriesed as to how much national news this gathered.
Bill Walker: No. A Vice-Presidential nominee telling a verifiable lie about himself should attract a lot of attention. It speaks to his character, and that's relevant to the issue of whether someone should vote for Romney-Ryan in November.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/runner-first-questioned-paul-ryan-marathon-time-speaks-155321505--election.html
The Deafness Before the Storm: New York Times
Evidently the neocons at Bush's white house knew more than we have been told about the threat from Bin Laden
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
Here is what the Chicago Teacher's Strike is About..It ain't about money...
In 1993 I was attending a teacher's meeting at the high school in the Chicago Public Schools that I was teaching at. An administrator was outlining a plan for us to do during homeroom/division classes. I said that the plan was not feasible and was unlikely to work, simply because we did not have enough time during homeroom/division. "It just isn't going to work" ......So the administrator steps away, and the principal steps up...and says...
"Stu, you don't do anything with your homeroom anyway..what are you complaining about"...in front of 65 of my fellow teachers...So, I got up and said, " You are wrong, I try very hard to work with my students, and give a lot of time to them in addition to homeroom..you are wrong for saying that."..So I stood up to the asshole. (I did not use any bad language, just what I just quoted. No one had ever stood up to this guy before in front of a meeting of faculty) Now I was tenured, and certified, but the union had a contract with the board that states in order to get rid of a tenured, certified teacher on a certain numbered postion, (which I had) that the administration of a school had to prove complete incompetence and lack of character and ability ..or something like that.
The principal had gotten rid of a couple of "new" people that didn't have tenure or a certified position..I had 20 years in and he couldn't even try .(the fact that I had given several thousand extra hours to that those students who I deeply cared about, meant nothing]
That contract is what this is about...Anyone who thinks different is uninformed as to what unions are about. This principal would have gotten rid of me as soon as he could, he was that kind of person. But there was a union contract and he couldn't even try.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Skokie, Illinois
Current location: Skokie, Illinois
Member since: Tue Dec 18, 2007, 12:07 PM
Number of posts: 38,414
