Warning: this is graphic and real!
This video/audio was captured on cellphone and presents the gruesome task of killing the "Butcher of Baghdad". American news has not yet seen fit to show America.
Note: They have no shame in showing the bloody slaughter of Saddam's victims.
2 min. 35 sec.
As we enter the new year, let us remember and consider the thousands of American soldiers, but also, don't forget the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and innocents who have also been killed for Bush's war.
Everyday is a day of celebration for the war corporations who profit, and a day of mourning for millions who have lost their loved ones.
Below also addresses the financial cost of the war and gives a "reality check" in the link that gives you an idea what this inconceivable number represents.
4min 45sec
Land Of Confusion - Lyrics
I must've dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
Moving into the street
Now did you read the news today?
They say the danger's gone away
But I can see the fire still alight
Burning into the night
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go around
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
Ah Ah Ah Ah
This is the world we live in
(ohh ohh oh)
And these are the hands we're given
(ohh oh)
Use them and let's start trying
(ohh ohh oh)
To make it a place worth living in
Our superman, where are you now?
When everything's gone wrong somehow
The men of steel, these men of power
Are losing control by the hour
And this is the time, this is the place
So we look for the future
But there's not much love to go around
Tell me why this is a land of confusion
Ah Ah Ah Ah
This is the world we live in
(ohh ohh oh)
And these are the hands we're given
(Ohh oh)
Use them and let's start trying
(ohh ohh oh)
To make it a place worth living in
I remember long ago
When the sun was shining
And all the stars were bright
All through the night
In the wake of this madness
As I held you tight
So long ago
I won't be coming home tonight
(sha sha)
My generation will put it right
(shh sha sha)
We're not just making promises
(sha sha)
That we know we'll never keep
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go around
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
Ah Ah Ah Ah
Now, this is the world we live in
(ohh ohh oh)
And these are the hands we're given
(ohh oh)
Use them and let's start trying
(ohh ohh oh)
To make it a place worth fighting for
This is the world we live in
(ohh ohh oh)
And these are the names we're given
(ohh oh)
Stand up and let's start showing
(ohh ohh oh)
Just where our lives are going to
Hacking Democracy! Here's the explanation I find most credible for massive losses in rural America especially Georgia, "the best government money can buy"---Julian Bond, NAACP Chair. While people are patting themselves on the back for how well the Dems did, no one is thinking about all those areas where there was no one watching the "henhouse".
This was the most interesting thing I have read on KOS in a year!
I'm Ashamed Of Kos!
by mostconsiderate (cross-posted at the Daily Kos)
I have given him every benefit of the doubt, but Kos does not represent The Daily Kos very well. On Larry King tonight, he seemed like a little kid, and frankly added to the "wimp factor" that we, socially liberal/fiscally conservative Democrats, have been trying to discard.
His inexperience at anything besides computer geekery and poll watching has shown consistently throughout this campaign. As he has totally ignored any race that had no publicly released polls and has spoken of nothing other than predictions without actually leading opinion, Kos has dropped the ball more often than my uncle who works in the butter factory.
He is afraid to talk about the blatant Republican conspiracy to suppress, steal and electronically reverse votes. It is clear, he absolutely wants to avoid anyone ever calling him a "conspiracy theorist" for fear someone will put a "tinfoil hat" on his head. Well, some conspiracies DO exist. Robert Kennedy, Jr's. diligent accounting of the stolen Ohio votes (180,000) in Rolling Stone was overlooked and understated by even those that call themselves "Liberals".
He is probably such a weakling that he will ban me or halt my commentary, so that I will not even be able to answer other's comments. He has done this to many others before and people just assume his critics have run away instead of having just been fascistically silenced. He has banned so many people for simply disagreeing with him that it makes me sick all in the name of “troll hunting”.
Sure, he started this site. And maybe I am out of line. But in the name of the free press, I feel compelled to ask him to stop pretending he represents me.
Even in such a clearly obvious vulnerable race as Mike McGraw vs Lynn "10 Commandments" Westmoreland, he has written off half of the races in the country. He will be embarrassed tomorrow to see that many races could have been won with very little extra help. I know for a fact that Mike McGraw's candidacy has been the most effective in the country, dollar for dollar ($70,000) against ($700,000). Based on my research, tomorrow will be close even though there was NO help from the Dems, who have clearly become overrun by the extreme. As a professional campaigner and writer for every network and a manager in every major newspaper chain since 1984, I am incensed to have such ignorance running such an organization that have so many hanging on its words.
Has Kos been bought? Is that it? Is it that all he cares about is selling a book or jumpstarting his own political career? I can tell you he can't possibly win a primary, much less an election, with his non-committal tone and clear fear written all over his face. He didn't even MENTION the projected voting irregularities and the dirty robocalls in VA while on Larry King. He needs to learn that you answer the questions they should have asked, not just the ones they did ask.
Sadly, he will probably be patting himself on the back for how great the Dems did after tomorrow, instead of self-flagellating over what we could have done. Personally, I will congratulate my candidate for his integrity and effort, either way the votes go. But, the geeky poll watchers should go back to the IRC, in some techno corner and let those of us with passion lead the nation again.
Note: there are no links in this post. No pics, no vids... just free speech.
334 Comments as of 10 AM Election Day
-----------------------
10 things I learned from the troll patrol:
by RonP at DearDemocrat (reposted from Daily Kos)
Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 09:00:03 PM EST
By this moment, mid-evening on Monday, November 6th, if we're not already talked-out and written-out about any and all aspects of Election Day that we have any control over... and if we're not taking a breather from posting on the subject until at least tomorrow evening when I hope and pray the celebrations begin ... then we're all just a bunch of trolls without a life!
I, for one, have learned a lot from the gang of fifty or so ... the ones out trolling on Friday, November 3rd just after 9:30 pm. And I, for one, am going to use this quiet time to be as untrolly as possible ... and share what I learned with you.
On Friday, I was inspired to write what I considered an "epilogue" piece on the John Kerry fiasco. I'm new to dKos--but big on playing by the rules or getting off the field. And although I knew much had been written on the incident, I believed I was within reasonable protocol as far as "not duplicating", and chose to write "one last piece".
I certainly did not want to be thought of poorly by fellow Kossacks. And as I'm cross-posting from my own new site, DearDemocrat.com--to which my heart and soul are dedicated to saving our Country and the Planet--I certainly did not want to piss or scare anybody off!
I read each and every comment two or three times, and where it seemed intelligent to do so, responded intelligently. Three dozen comments later, in less than 15 minutes after it all began, I found myself already distraught, distracted, frustrated, and embarrassingly, feeling sorry for myself--a professional, award winning writer, thinker, analyzer--when the twenty year-old college twit put in his or her two cents.
"Give me a fucking break," I thought. "I'm spending hours a day, sopping up as much news and opinion as possible, and using my four decades of corporate marketing experience trying to participate in what I believe is a bona fide program to help humanity, and this snot nosed kid is determining that I'm a fucking troll".
And then, the winds changed ... spirited discussion started rolling in ... and the tide began to turn.
Seven commenters spoke their piece. Fiercely. I spoke back. Passionately. They spoke back. Kindly.
Five hours had passed. It was now Tuesday, just past 2:30 in the am. I was beat to shit but feeling happier. Here's what I learned from the troll patrol:
1. Either I don't understand Kos' own words on "Dealing with trolls", or a large bunch of commenting Kossacks don't; I think, the latter. To wit: though I didn't read every diary posted re: John Kerry's botched joke, I certainly knew I was not duplicating, but rather adding an original premise to the mix. Any moron would have realized I hadn't "clearly intended to provoke an angry response" (Kos' own definition of what a troll is). I was NOT a troll.
2. Most of the comments were posted "simply to disrupt the conversation in a diary" (again, Kos' own words). Ergo ... nearly all of the commenters to my diary were mean, disruptive trolls ... and they deserved the frigging recipe.
3. When I spot an asshole, he's usually an asshole. And so is she.
4. Half of the commenters to my diary have no posted diaries; does this mean they spend all of their dKos time doing nothing but trolling and dropping comments? Get a fucking life!
5. People always have and always will sound off before they get a grip on what's really before them; usually, they should be forgiven; I always forgive two times.
6. There are a disproportionate amount of amateur Photoshoppers on the dKos. Do something good with the program or get a life!
7. You can tell genuinely good people after just a couple of sentences; seven of the commenters to my diary were really good people!
8. One very talented writer actually had the guts to recommend my diary.
9. Trollers will definitely disagree with me and not like this diary.
10. Though I have a degree in psychology, I still can't put a handle on what makes these big time "time wasters" tick.
All of the above aside, we all have something good in common. Our desires for tomorrow. I believe the only way we don't win is by criminal treachery. Unfortunately it's happened before. Hasta manana!
Hope to see you all here and at my new website, DearDemocrat.com
342 Comments by 11am Election Day
More hypocrisy from DailyKos
by vissud (reposted from Daily Kos)
Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 10:32:42 AM EST
DailyKos and Redstate.com really should just join forces. It's really all the same schtick. They could call it "PolticalGroupThink.org - Only one opinion matters".
Look at this nugget of "wisdom":
Good grief, is the magnitude of this screw-up somehow unclear? You do not post detailed classified plans for making the components of a nuke on the Internet, duh! As if this needs any escalating qualifiers, you most especially don't post it in Arabic in the middle of a war against well financed terrorists teeming with bug-fuck crazy, suicidal Jihadists.
Apparently, the information contained by Iraq's government is so dangerous to us, that Kossacks are having seizures over the danger. How is it that a country that supposedly never contained any threat to us, suddenly now contains the most dangerous information ever conceived by man?
Just plain election time politics is all. Again, $100.00 to the person with the first original thought. I leave you with all these Republican quotes about WMD:
Update [2006-11-6 11:1:43 by vissud]: Still waiting for the comments on all their Democratic brethren who fully believed in the WMD. Still, no one can seem to get it through their skulls, that if it was too dangerous to put on the Internet, it's too dangerous to have in the hands of Hussein. But, hey, give them a break. They're Kossacks. Breaking rank with the party line is the toughest thing thet could ever do. It's like quitting smoking for them.
Update [2006-11-6 11:13:55 by vissud]: Asinus Asinum Fricat, could you at least use something from the current decade? Jeesh.
Update [2006-11-6 11:37:49 by vissud]: Wonder why no one has noticed that I linked in Redstate.com in with DailyKos, and accused them of group think as well. Hmm, so I critique both sides, and yet the Kossaks take that as I must be some right wing nutjob. Interesting how group think affects reading comprehension.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."--From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."--From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"--From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."--Madeline Albright, 1998.
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"--National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."--Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."--Robert Byrd, October 2002.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."--Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."--Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."--Bill Clinton in 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."--Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."--Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."--Tom Daschle in 1998.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."--John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."--John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."--Dick Gephardt in September of 2002.
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."--Al Gore, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."--Bob Graham, December 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."--Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."--Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."--Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."--John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."--John Kerry, October 9, 2002.
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."--John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."--Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002.
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."--Joe Lieberman, August, 2002.
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, United Nations inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."--Patty Murray, October 9, 2002.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."--Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."--Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."--John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."--John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."--Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.
--------------------------------------
The fact is, Kos and his staff attack everyone who questions them in any way. They are called "troll hunters" and only they have a special button "Troll Rate" as they are "trusted users". When they see anything that questions their young prince Kos, they immediately attack with namecalling, recipes, tinfoil hats, and rarely---actual commentary, addressing the diary. Kos views himself as far more influential than he really is. He sits at his computer workstation and plays God, putting his name on all the poorly written superliberal pieces that his staff hands him. He is NO journalist but he has stumbled upon a geekdom with a little power, only due to his computer skills. Most at his site are equally geeky and exhibit more HTML than political SAVVY. They should stick to web-design.
Though all Democrats appreciate their votes, Kossacks by in large, are young, inexperienced, and just left of Lenin. They stick together, and mistakenly pretend to represent ALL liberal bloggers. The mainstream media mistakenly let Markos (Kos) speak on their shows on the left and it gives a false impression that Dems are rabid, communistic, and limp wristed wimps. Kos is all of the above, but Dems are not! It is time for the moderates to come back home to the big tent (in some cases--A Circus tent).
I found this rather refreshing. Oh well, time to read what the adults are saying at Huffpo. ---Editor, Duly Consider
(repost by mostconsiderate)
Daily Kos
It's the final stretch. Every weapon has fired and now we wait to see if an ignorant incumbent Westmoreland will fall. No question, by the money poll, Westmoreland wins big, but we have yet to see if any amount of money is enough to counter the incredible negatives Westmoreland has created for himself as the king of the "do-nothiners".
Mike beat Westmoreland badly in their main debate and in every public meeting since according to every report.
Mike McGraw has been into the most conservative parts of the GA 3rd and has still been welcomed with open arms. As a moderate "Sam Nunn Democrat", Mike has seen some sideways skepticism, but he has received endorsements and financial support from major current and old Dems throughout Georgia. Though Sam Nunn is no longer an elected official, he is still VERY popular and those Dems that thought there were no options among the liberal masses are returning to the fold. Southern Democrats are conservative in many ways and are sick of being ignored. McGraw speaks their language and they have listened.
A last minute infusion after the Atlanta Journal & Constitution endorsement and headline condemnation of Westmoreland has made it possible for Mike to get his message out in these final days all over the district as his positive TV is running strong.
John Lewis, Sam Nunn, and a long list of respected Dems have helped Mike. The newspaper of record for the state-the AJC could not have been more positive on Mike and more clear that Westmoreland must go with "Oust Westmoreland" in their headline for their midterm election endorsements.
Despite polls being hidden, people are well aware that they may not be favorable to Westmoreland, as he certainly did polls with Public Opinion Research (FEC Filing-$12000 -Polling)and he did not release their findings, though they certainly became known among political insiders, supposedly showing a neck in neck race three weeks before the election.
McGraw's internal phoning has indicated upward trending and within the last week. But polls don't win races and we may see many embarrassed Repubs staying at home, while Dems proudly vote for change.
I realize Kossacks and Huffpo don't believe anything that has not been sent through the PR department, and that's ok as the proof will be in the pudding. McGraw phone banks have heard the most enthusiastic feedback in the last week that I have ever heard of in 30 years of campaigning.
The most phonebankers could get out of the few Westmoreland supporters they could find, was simply to hang up as they have nothing to defend except their kneejerk distrust of Dems.
Mike wants to thank the SEIU for their incredible support and augmentation to Mike's phone banks which allowed more than 10,000 calls, most finding McGraw support even in the deep woods of Georgia.
Finally, all are breathing, waiting and watching TV ads. The only question is, "Will Goliath fall?" Short of a miracle, Westmoreland is going down.
You would think none of the elections without public polls are truly contested! Kossacks and Huffpo have absolutely become obsessed with polls.
Tuesday will have a LOT of surprises, even for the pollsters, but even more in races below the radar. I say "you count the votes, I'll GET more votes; let's see whose time is better spent."
The big news here in Georgia is that Mike McGraw vs Lynn Westmoreland was one of only two in the whole state to get endorsements from the leading newspaper Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Yes, this is a 1 newspaper city and AJC has clout. Old fashion journalism; they did their homework and saw a poll had been done by Westmoreland, but not released out of shame. "No Comment," said Westmoreland.
But, more importantly, it was in the headline, "Oust Westmoreland" with no reference to the Governor's race or other big money campaigns.
Mike McGraw is possibly the only candidate in the country to be running an "all" positive campaign despite outside advice. Here is the ad that will be running through Tuesday.
Mike McGraw - Positive TV Ad
(Repost by mostconsiderate)
Daily Kos
Well, finally major media realizes McGraw is a winnable candidate! The day after an attack mailer was sent to the entire district distorting McGraw's positions, the Atlanta Journal & Constitution Endorsed almost every incumbent EXCEPT Westmoreland.
Mike McGraw hit a home run! Not quite Hank Aaron, but it scored!
Basically, after FEC filings made it clear that Westmoreland had done a poll and refused to release it (thus he was ahamed) and that he spent $50000 on a single direct mailer, the AJC jumped on it and said, "Enough" to the bully-Westmoreland.
Of course, Mike McGraw still waits for the other foot to drop as Westmoreland has a huge warchest. At least for now, every other media outlet and the party will take McGraw's candidacy seriously! Cox owns the AJC and local TV WSB (who will follow up--then come the rest) Please contribute to McGraw: http://www.mikemcgrawforcongress.com/contribute.html
This is clearly a tacky attack and completely spins all of McGraw's moderate positions.
Can you say backfire?
| Mike McGraw's Interview as aired on WSB-TV, Atlanta, GA. McGraw is running for congress against Lynn Westmoreland of Colbert Report Infamy (Yes, the 10 Commandments Guy) | |
This is the debate from October 11, 2006 between Democratic challenger Mike McGraw and and incumbent Lynn Westmoreland (R). If I do say so myself, McGraw shows us why Westmoreland needs to be sent back to his previous job; but you be the judge. This is unedited truth! Note the one with a heart, mind and middle-class credentials.
Mike McGraw for Congress
55 minutes
The Republicans say we have spent "only" 1-percent of our GDP on the foreign war on terror. Dems say we have spent money we don't have, a "bank breaking" 20-percent of our budget. I say we haven't done it right in the first war we started and we've done too much in the second, both for too long, and all in the name of defeating terrorism while creating it; as failure to kill it only makes it stronger. Of course, all of this assumes the original source of terrorism was not a direct product of our corporate-owned military industrial complex's unquenchable thirst for higher profits and power.
Admittedly, now that the US is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously and this alone has spread us unworkably thin. Many say the real question is not whether we can win on both fronts or either; it is whether we should have been there in the first place in an enduring way.
If we truly believed Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11, I guess the removal of the Taliban was a good idea. After all, they were a government of a sovereign nation that supported a terrorist organization that attacked another nation. Foreign wars are against nations. When you get into occupying a nation and doing the job of its government for them, you are only asking for trouble.
If it was right for us to fight a war in either country to establish regime change, it doesn't mean it was our right to manage them afterwards. We are not supposed to be an empire. Frankly, neither we nor any other empire has succeeded. They eventually spread too thin, failing to win the "hearts and minds" of the conquered; they become distracted from their internal affairs and service to their people and they squander their resources. Meanwhile, corporations of war make record profits on the backs of the working people and on the deaths of our soldiers.
No one seems to be willing to face the hard facts that the US was arrogant to think they could manage the internal conflict of a complex culture any better than they could. Yes, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were vicious governments. Yes, we were helpful to remove them from office. But we were wrong to assume we were the ones to stay and make their decisions for them knowing nothing about their cultures.
The people of Afghanistan and Iraq would have thanked us for simple regime change and a warning that any similar regime would face removal if they too failed to manage their people in a way that kept them from attacking other countries.
I am so sick of my mother running over and telling me we have new terrorists. Something real happens in Iraq as they defend their nation against US occupiers and Americans connect the dots assuming they are coming here to attack us. Gaza has terrorists and people connect the dots and assume they are coming here, since of course, we have Jews too.
All of this incredible reasoning that leads to titillation and real terror (the kind Bush creates) is a result of ignorant people, bored with their lives and fearing those things that simply don't exist, any more than snakes and are out to get us when we go hiking, that bears are going to hunt us down and kill us in National parks, or that Sharks are going to come to the nations beaches and start eating the millions of unsuspecting swimmers.
I have no doubt the Toronto, Canada thing went like this:
1) Boy meets girl, live or on the internet.
2) Boy is attracted to girl because she shakes her ass.
3) Girl tells boy she is excited by "bad boys".
4) He tells here he is a "bad boy" in order to get laid.
5) He does or doesn't get laid.
6) She goes out and tells people that she met a "bad boy".
It is age old. Boy tells girl he's somebody exciting when the truth is he is nobody and he's boring.
If you go on the internet, you will find young, stupid boys standing in line ready to tell girls that they are willing to "Kill the President", "Blow up a famous building", or anything she tells him she is impressed by. I come across people on a daily basis that brag they are willing to start a violent revolution. Any policeman will tell you; each time there is an unsolved murder that is on TV, people stand in line confessing to crimes they did not commit, just for the attention. Watch Jerry Springer on TV and you will see these pathetic people everywhere. They just want to get their "15 minutes of fame".
If they all acted on these stated intentions, we'd all be dead. I mean, how many times has somebody said, "I'll kill you if..." Or "I'm gonna kick your ass"? Then nothing happens, unless of course, you say these things to a hooker in NY who has figured out a new game. Get boys to admit they are "bad boys", and then turn them into the FBI, who is waiting for something to tell their political bosses in order to get a pat on the head. These Haitian boys that told FBI operative, "Ana" that they would bomb the Holland tunnel in order to flood lower Manhattan, were little dumbasses trying to get laid, plain and simple. They obviously didn't pass or take Physics 101 or they would know water doesn't rise above its shoreline through breached tunnels any more than the beach is going to encroach on the land without provocation.
If these terrorists were real, there is nothing to stop them. How difficult is it to get a gun in the US and use it to pick people off from a building top or interstate bridge? If they want to blow up a boat in Long Beach, what is stopping them? If they want to set off a bomb, what is stopping them from doing it in a stadium, movie theater, or any public place? They are certainly easy enough to make and place and ignite. If they are real, they don't talk about it, they do it. And chances are, unless they brag about it, what are the chances they'd even be caught. People with fantasy desire and people with will and action are far apart. At the end of the day, these things are braggadocio and fiction.
What is real is the overreaction by an ignorant public which believes anything that looks like a good movie. What is real is the willingness of politicians to act on their knowledge of public ignorance and naivete. "Fear mongers" are alive and well and getting re-elected. The news is reporting it and selling a lot of advertising as they compete with similar fiction coming from the movies and internet. The fear is real. If there are terrorists, they have already won without blowing up anything. The sad reality is, the real terrorists are the politicians themselves and the news organizations that report their statements without appropriate scrutiny. Worse, the news organizations not only report them but hypothesize them to death by creating one graphic after the other propagating the false seeds of fear.
Duly Consider is non-demominational, non-partisan but presents a variety of perspectives for your consideration.
Speaking out on gays, women and more, a progressive evangelical says 'We ought to get out of the judging business.'
Excerpt from Interview by Laura Sheahen
July 2004--Evangelical leader, sociology professor, and Baptist minister Tony Campolo made headlines in the 1990s when he agreed to be a spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton. A self-described Bible-believing Christian, he has drawn fire from his fellow evangelicals for his stance on contemporary issues like homosexuality. He talked with Beliefnet recently about his new book, Speaking My Mind.
It's a common perception that evangelical Christians are conservative on issues like gay marriage, Islam, and women’s roles. Is this the case?
Well, there's a difference between evangelical and being a part of the Religious Right. A significant proportion of the evangelical community is part of the Religious Right. My purpose in writing the book was to communicate loud and clear that I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.
When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?
There are a group of evangelicals who would say, "Wait a minute. We’re evangelicals but we want to respect Islam. We don’t want to call its prophet evil. We don’t want to call the religion evil. We believe that we have got to learn to live in the same world with our Islamic brothers and sisters and we want to be friends. We do not want to be in some kind of a holy war."
We also raise some very serious questions about the support of policies that have been detrimental to the poor. When I read the voter guide of a group like the Christian Coalition, I find that they are allied with the National Rifle Association and are very anxious to protect the rights of people to buy even assault weapons. But they don’t seem to be very supportive of concerns for the poor, concerns for trade relations, for canceling Third World debts.
In short, there’s a whole group of issues that are being ignored by the Religious Right and that warrant the attention of Bible-believing Christians. Another one would be the environment.
I don’t think that John Kerry is the Messiah or the Democratic Party is the answer, but I don’t like the evangelical community blessing the Republican Party as some kind of God-ordained instrument for solving the world’s problems. The Republican Party needs to be called into accountability even as the Democratic Party needs to be called into accountability. So it’s that double-edged sword that I’m trying to wield.
Are the majority of evangelicals in America leaning conservative because they see their leaders on TV that way? Or is there a contingent out there that we don’t hear about in the press that is more progressive on the issues you just talked about?
The latest statistics that I have seen on evangelicals indicate that something like 83 percent of them are going to vote for George Bush and are Republicans. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that Christians need to be considering other issues beside abortion and homosexuality.
These are important issues, but isn’t poverty an issue? When you pass a bill of tax reform that not only gives the upper five percent most of the benefits, leaving very little behind for the rest of us, you have to ask some very serious questions. When that results in 300,000 slots for children's afterschool tutoring in poor neighborhoods being cut from the budget. When one and a half billion dollars is cut from the "No Child Left Behind" program.
In short, I think that evangelicals are so concerned with the unborn—as we should be—that we have failed to pay enough attention to the born—to those children who do live and who are being left behind by a system that has gone in favor of corporate interests and big money.
So as an evangelical, I find myself very torn, because I am a pro-life person. I understand evangelicals who say there comes a time when one issue is so overpowering that we have to vote for the candidate that espouses a pro-life position, even if we disagree with him on a lot of other issues.
My response to that is OK, the Republican party and George Bush know that they have the evangelical community in its pocket—[but] they can’t win the election without us. Given this position, shouldn’t we be using our incredible position of influence to get the president and his party to address a whole host of other issues which we think are being neglected?
Like what you just said—poverty, or our foreign policy?
Exactly. And we would also point out that the evangelical community has become so pro-Israel that it is forgotten that God loves Palestinians every bit as much. And that a significant proportion of the Palestinian community is Christian. We’re turning our back on our own Christian brothers and sisters in an effort to maintain a pro-Zionist mindset that I don’t think most Jewish people support. For instance, most Jewish people really support a two-state solution to the Palestinian crisis. Interestingly enough, George Bush supports a two-state solution.
He’s the first president to actually say that the Palestinians should have a state of their own with their own government. However, he’s received tremendous opposition from evangelicals on that very point.
Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible? Are they adhering to the kinds of teachings that Christ made clear?
In the book, I take issue, for instance, with the increasing tendency in the evangelical community to bar women from key leadership roles in the church. Over the last few years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken away the right of women to be ordained to ministry. There were women that were ordained to ministry—their ordinations have been negated and women are told that this is not a place for them. They are not to be pastors.
They point to certain passages in the Book of Timothy to make their case, but tend to ignore that there are other passages in the Bible that would raise very serious questions about that position and which, in fact, would legitimate women being in leadership positions in the church. In Galatians, it says that in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, all are one in Christ Jesus. In the Book of Acts, the Bible is very clear that when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Church that both men and women begin to prophesy, that preaching now belongs to both men and women. Phillip had four daughters, all of whom prophesied, which we know means preaching in biblical language. I’d like to point out that in the 16th chapter of Romans, the seventh verse, we have reference to Junia. Junia was a woman and she held the high office of apostle in the early Church. What is frightening to me is that in the New International Translation of the Scriptures, the word Junia was deliberately changed to Junius to make it male.
I’m saying, let’s be faithful to the Bible. You can make your point, but there are those of us equally committed to Scripture who make a very strong case that women should be in key leaderships in the Church. We don’t want to communicate the idea that to believe the Bible is to necessarily be opposed to women in key roles of leadership in the life of early Christendom.
What position do you wish American evangelicals would take on homosexuality?
As an evangelical who takes the Bible very seriously, I come to the first chapter of Romans and feel there is sufficient evidence there to say that same-gender eroticism is not a Christian lifestyle. That’s my position.
So you mean homosexual activity?
That’s right. What I think the evangelical community has to face up to, however, is what almost every social scientist knows, and I’m one of them, and that is that people do not choose to be gay. I don’t know what causes homosexuality, I have no idea. Neither does anybody else. There isn’t enough evidence to support those who would say it’s an inborn theory. There isn’t enough evidence to support those who say it’s because of socialization.
I’m upset because the general theme in the evangelical community, propagated from one end of this country to the other--especially on religious radio--is that people become gay because the male does not have a strong father image with which to identify. That puts the burden of people becoming homosexual on parents.
Most parents who have homosexual children are upset because of the suffering their children have to go through living in a homophobic world. What they don’t need is for the Church to come along and to lay a guilt trip on top of them and say “And your children are homosexual because of you. If you would have been the right kind of parent, this would have never happened.” That kind of thinking is common in the evangelical Church and the book attacks on solid sociological, psychological, biological grounds.
by Jimbo
I keep hearing terrorists are the new Jews as if Jews were no longer persecuted. I hear the same the same about Gays, as if everything is okay now that we have Wil & Grace, a show that is stolen from its namesakes by a stereotype gay man and his alcoholic female friend that acts like gay drag queen; now that's progress!
Gays are far from accepted. The thing that kills me is that now, we are not only NOT accepted, now we are openly laughed at for stereotypes. They've even legitimized the stereotypes by calling it "Queer Theory". Why don't they just cut off my balls? That would be like having a respected academic course in college called "Nigger Theory".
Then, they have the nerve to suggest civil unions could even come close to satisfying the call for parity with straights. When two gay people fall in love with people from another country, their relationships are not protected by green cards, yet straights think it would all be okay if each state just individually passed half measure civil union laws and corporations gave domestic partnership coverage, which is really intended to help all single people, a majority of which are straight.
I am so sick of people acting like we have arrived, when we haven't even been allowed on the same train. There is going to be a violent revolution before its over and many gays will die before there is any movement of moral justice, but the principles will finally be clear. Nothing half-ass is acceptable.
Can anyone imagine that black people would have accepted being able to vote for local and state officials but not the President? If black slaves had been granted the right to permanently rent land but never hold title?
The whole idea is insane and many gay people, God forgive them for their low self-esteem, are willing to take less than full recognition of one the most powerful statements of their humanity, the right to love and permanently pair. It's not about reproductive rights; that's just a red herring filter that straights are trying to create to make it impossible for gays to respond. If we just wanted to reproduce, what the hell? Who can't do that? It just takes an unplanned egg and sperm joining. Gays become parents quite easily and often.
Here's the deal. Gays are not ever going to get something as long as it is perceived that they must be "accepted" by straights. Hell, whites still don't understand or accept blacks, but at least they can fuck each other until there is only one color. That will solve their differences eventually. Gays and straight will never fully "understand each other". How can they?
But they better, by God, respect each other, or they will kill each other and it will make the US civil war look like a cake walk.
Imagine if even 10% of invisible gay people begin to truly act up. We don't want to go there, do we? Now, wasn’t that funny!
Check out these blogs; they make things a little more clear:
Much Deeper Discrimination---Gay Immigration Rights
Gay Marriage Green Cards; Government's Job To Defend Relationships--Part 2
Bush Pandering On Gay Issue -- It's Time For A Liberal Backlash!
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
Illustration by Matt Mahurin
RFK-Rolling Stones Article
Two Presidential Elections In A Row?
Are we in an era when the biggest threat to national security may be the belief that US elections are illegitimate?
As we enter a new round of attacks on civil liberties by the Bush Administration, it is time to act, if we haven't already. Bush is currently pandering to the right to ban gay marriage on the national level. He is unlikely to be successful at the constitutional level, but he will most certainly stir up hate among those that go to the polls next November.
It is a wedge issue, and the worse thing we can let him do is to push the issue back into the closet. Democrats must refuse to be apologists for doing the right thing.
I am begging for people to hear this as it effects tens of millions of people directly, and all of us indirectly. This is a group that has been vilified to a greater extent than the Jews throughout history. They have suffered a tyranny of the majority long enough. Frankly, it's considered acceptable fodder for humor, and it's got to stop.
Gays are told they are "less than", "abnormal", from the day they find within themselves a seed of attraction to their own sex. They are persecuted more heinously than any group. Humor seems to be their nervous reaction to the condition, but there is a Pagliacci in every funny gay you see. Inside, there is pain which leads to suicide and alcohol abuse at a higher rate than any other group.
It is time, not to pander, not to apologize, not to hide, but to strike while the iron is hot.
Civilized countries all over the world think we are disgusting for our treatment of gays. We are not considered the symbol of freedom anywhere, including inside America. It is clear there is a long list of countries with greater commitment to protecting the weak.
Nothing short of a national recognition of gay marriage will pull people out of the obscurity of gay bars and ghettos and into the fold of mainstream America.
The right of committed companionship is one none would want to lose. It is one gays would love to gain.
Imagine if you met someone from another country, fell in love, wanted to bring them home and commit, but you're gay and no such green card right exists. You must live in fear of ultimate separation or bounce back and forth to maintain your relationship. Impossible.
For more:
Gay Marriage Green Cards
Much Deeper Gay Discrimination
Recently posted on Kos, this diary drew 157 comments, mostly red herrings, in 15 minutes. The writer was blocked from responding to the attacks and diary rights were revoked. You judge from the comments whether you think NSA/CIA might be camped out there to discredit such discussion.
Note: This site holds no official position on any conspiracy theories but only encourages due consideration.
Original Kos Story
Big Names Give Credibility To 911 Truth Movement--
Bring Rise To NSA Disinformation
by Trnscndr
Fri May 26, 2006 at 08:43:40 AM PDT
Recent releases of films dealing with theories of US government involvement at such places as Deniro's Tribeca Film Festival, are finally getting taken seriously by a mainstream audience. The knee jerk reaction has been so far, to push such theorists into the closet with UFO abductees. Now, the See No Evil crowd is opening their eyes, unafraid to consider the mounting evidence.
Diary :: ::
I have only recently myself begun to open up to these theories. But with the leading scientists backing these theories, it's hard not to listen and look. When the architects that designed the WTC say it's impossible, I ask who more qualified?
Demolition experts, intelligence insiders and common sense, equivalent to the resistance to the JFK "magic bullet theory" in the Warren Commission, are lining up to shake their heads.
However, NSA and CIA operatives are also standing in line with the largest disinformation squad ever assembled. If there is a coverup, agents are on the net doing their best to discredit 911 "Truth-tellers". Recently, I was on a liberal forum and mentioned the possibility of government involvement and within minutes, other users were attacking me as if I had suggested Santa and Satan were the same person because one is a scrambled spelling of the other.
Even if the government did not do it, intentionally allow it, or even cover it up, their denials will be professional and intense. The NSA has nine times more employees than the CIA and the FBI, MIA and a long list of unofficial agents working for the State Department are there for one reason, to provide disinformation to discredit the truth.
I don't propose someone just do a poll and believe what the majority comes up with. The majority don't read newspapers. Those that do, read one only. They get their news from Fox and CNN, if at all. Most haven't read a book since one was assigned in high school, and even then they got Cliff's notes.
They simply don't have the mental capacity to process the information. Yes, it is dense science but not science fiction. If the truth doesn't match optimism, it is painful. However, these actions by a government of the people cannot be ignored. We Americans must go to sources other than Disney for their revelations. They must watch something other than "Nightmare On Elm Street:Part 99" to get a reality check from time to time.
Have we become so conditioned that everything seems to be fiction or nonsense, jut because most is?
If you want to see a few of the more notable documentary films questioning the official 911 explanation, go to
Duly Consider (That's here) or any of the many sites offering such fair consideration.
This is the complete documentary film, Why We Fight.
What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism? This award-winning film provides an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine.
Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life?
Is the US government in the business of encouraging war around the world, just to sell arms?
This goes back to once General, President Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex.
Katie discusses the release of his new film and his current growing position in the public eye.
If difficulty go to following link and search "Gore" on the Today tab, http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g
8:04
Al Gore is becoming a beloved figure very quickly. His movie, "Inconvenient Truth" is going to be a documentary blockbuster (trailer on this site). The Spike Jonze documentary-2000(Complete on this site) portrays him as very smooth and likeable.
He hasn't even announced but there is already a huge groundswell to draft him. Most superficially assume he is used goods, but they forget Reagan and Nixon both lost once before coming back and winning in landslides. Most don't account for the reminiscence factor and the anger within those that felt slighted the first time. Also, many who didn't vote the first time, realize from the closeness of the race that they could have made a difference had they voted.
Hillary is slipping and frankly she doesn't yet do well with male voters at all in either party. She is no Bill Clinton. Russ Feingold is doing extremely well at the moment and is revered for his courage in standing up for his principles, a rarity in DC nowadays.
It is clear that with Gore or Feingold on the either side of the ticket, that the Dems have honesty and forthrightness in their corner and a fair geographic balance if they join forces.
Please share this with your friends and thank you to crooksandliars.com for hosting the video
This is the famous sketch from SNL where Gore proved a straight face is funny! Enjoy!
4:03 (Press Play and wait to load--not streaming;
may take a few minutes)
Download -QuickTime-(Apple Users - CTL Click-Open Link in New Tab)
