HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NYC_SKP » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: N/A
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Golden State
Home country: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&f
Current location: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=30906
Member since: Thu May 29, 2008, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 68,644

About Me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593371#post1 [div class=excerpt]http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384291 http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384554 1. It need not be unanimous. But there must be the consensus. I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist. But if some people are just-kinda-meh-not-sure opposed to a lock, then you can assume that consensus exists. But I think the bigger picture is that if everyone is doing the job in good faith and being polite to each other, then it should not be very hard to determine if consensus exists and act accordingly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595617 [/div] ~~~~~~ Hi Jerry!!! :thumbsup:[font color=blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg :thumbsup:[font color = blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg [b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|[font style=\\\"color:#0000ff !important;\\\"]:thumbsup: Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group] http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/warren_2016_bumper_sticker.jpg blue color is color:#0000ff

Journal Archives

"Fought against electric rate cut" "Yes: criminalize flag burning" "Yes to wiretapping"

From your reply:

1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)

Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning. (Jan 2010)

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

OpEd: Disagrees with progressives on corporatism & military. (Dec 2014)

Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison. (Aug 1994)

to name a few problems

Why not just elect a moderate Republican?

Yup! Hey, have you ever seen this: World Religions Tree? Giant graphic.


Click on the image for the gigantic graphic, shows origins and concentric rings show time.

Thanks for your reply which made me go do a search for world religions, I was looking for a pie chart and found this.

Small version:

Well, the WSJ and NY Times have great new stories, too!

A giant global initiative, favors to corporations as Secretary of State, and a run for POTUS, it all stinks.

Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties
Family charities collected donations from companies she promoted as secretary of state

By James V. Grimaldi andRebecca Ballhaus
Feb. 19, 2015 10:30 p.m. ET

Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co. , Exxon Mobil Corp. , Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.

At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.

As Mrs. Clinton prepares to embark on a race for the presidency, she has a web of connections to big corporations unique in American politics—ties forged both as secretary of state and by her family’s charitable interests. Those relationships are emerging as an issue for Mrs. Clinton’s expected presidential campaign as income disparity and other populist themes gain early attention.

Indeed, Clinton Foundation money-raising already is drawing attention. “To a lot of progressive Democrats, Clinton’s ties to corporate America are disturbing,” says Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College who once worked for congressional Republicans. Mrs. Clinton’s connections to companies, he says, “are a bonanza for opposition researchers because they enable her critics to suggest the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

more at http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002


Separate Philanthropy From Political Clout
Hillary Clinton Should Ban Foreign Donors to the Clinton Global Initiative


The Clinton Foundation has become one of the world’s major generators of charity, mobilizing global efforts to confront issues like health, climate change, economic development and equality for women and girls.

Since its inception in 2001, it has raised nearly $2 billion in cash and pledges with millions more flowing in from an impressive array of donors, including foreign governments, financial chieftains and domestic donors, many of the latter political heavyweights.

All of which underlines the need for Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her all but certified role as a Democratic presidential candidate, to reinstate the foundation’s ban against foreign contributors, who might have matters of concern to bring before a future Clinton administration. This was a restriction Mrs. Clinton worked out with the Obama administration to allay concerns of potential conflict of interest when she became secretary of state in 2009.

According to a report this week in The Wall Street Journal, the ban was dropped after Mrs. Clinton left the administration in 2013, leading to a resumption of donations from foreign governments and agencies to the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, which sponsors conferences of world leaders from government, industry and philanthropy. Donors have included the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency reported to be involved in promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/hillary-clinton-should-ban-foreign-donors-to-the-clinton-global-initiative.html

And then this little spin-off is just creepy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Women_in_Hedge_Funds


Madison: Federalist No. 46, on the makeup of the militia:

(crossposted in Gun Control & RKBA)

This post is in response to a recent post in a protected group and serves to provide more detail and context, and is open to all members for discussion:

The inspiring post makes reference to James Madison Federalist No. 46 and is titled: Why Second Amendment absolutists are crazy wrong in which the OP notes:

"From this it seems pretty clear that the militia envisioned by Hamilton was a truly well regulated, full time, finely trained group of soldiers."

For context, here is the full text of essay (in italics), preceded by an introductory clause provide at wikipedia:

...In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force, Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction of the might of an armed citizenry:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.


It seems very unlikely that Madison refers here to half a million "truly well regulated, full time, finely trained group of soldiers" as suggested by the OP.

No, I submit that he refers to regular folks who are otherwise engaged full-time in ordinary careers and are enjoying their Second Amendment rights.

It's a great essay, filled with great lines that I would like to have highlighted, but then almost all of it would have been highlighted.

>>>> Self defense is a civil right, even in California, according to it's state constitution. It's right there in the first clause of the first article.


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


I just gave my first heart to MiddleFingerMom.

Oh, the smiles and laughs he brought to us all....


And thank you, Kali, for posting on his behalf a final post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018545576

Go to Page: 1