Latest Threads
Greatest Threads
Home » Discuss » Journals » Nasprin » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
NPK Journal - Archives
Posted by Nasprin in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Oct 31st 2008, 04:29 PM
This whole ACORN voter fraud boils down to one thing, desperation. Lets just say that the worst charge against ACORN is true. The worst thing the GOP and John McCain have charged ACORN with is registering poor homeless people to vote. Lord have mercy. How dare they. I mean do poor homeless people suddenly lose all their rights under the constitution because they are poor and homeless. Just because somebody does not have a home does not mean that their voice should not count or that they should lose the fundamental right under a free society.

What the Republican Party really is upset about is that the majority of people that ACORN helped to get registered to vote were poor, homeless, democrats. If ACORN was out there registering poor, homeless, republicans to vote the republicans wouldn’t have had a damn thing to say about it. In fact if ACORN was out there registering poor, homeless, republicans to vote, Sean Hanity would be calling these people great Americans, and would be broadcasting his show live from ACORN’s mobile command center.
So just that we are clear, what this really boils down to is that ACORN was able to mobilize hundreds of volunteers to get thousands of people registered and ready to vote, you know more of that awful community organizing stuff, and the republicans got pissed off. These are the same people that the Republican Party long ago forgot about and would have rather these people remain lost and forgotten about. The Republican Party sees these poor people as a threat and that is why they have attacked ACORN and other organizations like them. If this is voter fraud then consider me and everyone else that have helped poor and homeless people get out and vote and exercise their rights guilty. If this is what I am guilty of then fine, lock me up. I would rather be locked up then see my rights taken away by the Republican Party, either way we lose.

Even though I have never voted for a republican, I used to have respect for the Republican Party. I know longer have any respect for the Republican Party. The party that has been taken over by people like Sean Hanity and Rush Limbaugh have turned what was once a respectable party into a corrupt organization that uses fear and intimidation as it’s most powerful weapons to attack and demonize ordinary citizens and have consistently ignored the voice of it’s own party. This election has proved that republican party is out of touch with this country and more importantly out of touch with it’s own base.
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Posted by Nasprin in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Sep 13th 2008, 07:40 PM

From The Times of London:

At the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, Sarah Palin’s former pastor sees powerful signs that the end of the world is near.

Pastor Ed Kalnins cites conflict in the Middle East, America’s dependence on foreign oil and the depletion of energy reserves as evidence that “storm clouds are gathering”. He told The Times: “Scripture specifically mentions oil instability as a sign of the Rapture. We’re seeing more and more oil wars. The contractions of the fulfillment of prophecies are getting tighter and tighter.”

He declined to set an exact date for the Rapture, or the “End of Days” – the belief in a time when Jesus will return, raising up believers to Heaven and leaving the wicked to be ruled by the Antichrist – but hopes it will be in his lifetime. “I’m looking out the window and I can see it’s going to rain,” he said. “I’m just looking at the turmoil of the world, Iraq, other places – everywhere people are fighting against Christ.”

Sarah Palin is still a member of this church.

The Governor of Alaska left the Wasilla Assembly of God Church in 2002 after 26 years’ attendance, but she returned there in June to link religion to both energy and war. She said that troops in Iraq were on “a task that is from God”, and went on to urge the congregation to pray for the completion of a $30 billion pipeline across the state. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built,” she said.

Full story>

Seems to me that Mrs. Palin has a preacher issue that needs to be discussed by the MSM. What other far right religious views do she hold. Is this the kind of fundie the GOP want in the white house, one rung from the Commander and Chief.

Read entry | Discuss (17 comments)
Posted by Nasprin in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Aug 24th 2008, 01:16 AM

I must say that the longer Obama waited to pick a running mate, the more apprehensive I was getting. The more I started thinking that Obama was having trouble deciding just who the right person for the job truly was. But after seeing Obama and Biden speak today in Springfield. I now feel relieved. Not relieved that it's all over, since this is really just the beginning of a long push that will culminate come this November, but relieved that Obama made the right decision. Yes Obama could have chosen several well qualified running mates, such as Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, Tim Kaine, or Chris Dodd. Each of them bring experience and a well rounded political portfolio to the discussion. But Joe Biden brings something special. I'm talking about passion. It was clear just listening to Biden speak this afternoon that he truly feels passionate about what Barrack Obama is trying to achieve. The speech from Biden was clearly more off the cuff then the usual well contrived, carefully planned verbatim we are used to hearing from other politicians, including John McCain. During the speech Biden vigorously bit into the McCain conjecture without having to resort to nastiness. Biden joked with the crowd several times that McCain would have to “figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at” when considering his own economic future. Biden also refused to hold back criticizing McCain for telling Americans that he was ready to bring America change, something that Biden scoffed at telling the crowd "You can’t change America when you supported George Bush’s policies 95 percent of the time.”

Barrack refered to Biden as a man of decency who brought change to Washington, but didn't let Washington change him. It is clear that what Barrack was referring to is that over the 34 years Biden has served in the Senate he has fought hard to bring about the kind of change that Barrack Obama feels characterizes his own campaign. Indeed Biden has sought a coarse from his formidable days in the Senate which included serving as chairman over the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and formerly holding the post as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Biden is also credited with helping to bring an end to the conflict in Bosnia, something that he would like to do with the current conflict in Iraq. Biden has also been outspoken on ending the current violence in the Sudan, stating several times that America has a duty to intervene and stop the genocide currently taking place in Darfur. It these qualifications and more that Biden has made himself the right choice for Obama.

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by Nasprin in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Aug 21st 2008, 04:22 PM

This may not be all that surprising to you, but the Bush Co war to finally bring peace and end suffering to the middle east may end up costing the United States tax payers close to 1 trillion dollars by the end of this year. Let me say that again. That is trillion. The Iraq war is already the costliest military operation since WWII. Toppling the costs of both the Vietnam War and the Korean War. That is more than Bush and Cheney misled the American people to believe it would cost to purge Iraq of Saddam Hussein and of course those non-existent weapons of mass destruction back in 2003. At the end of the day America’s debt will bulge another trillion dollars to support a war that according to a recent statement made by John McCain “We have already won.” Yes even John McCain recently admitted that the major operation to rid Iraq of its former cruel and malignant warlord has been accomplished. And as he stubbornly stands by the decision as to why Bush had a huge banner sprawled across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in what has become an infamous speech given by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003, he continue to maintain the initial operation was a success. In that speech the President told us that the major obstacle of getting rid of Saddam and his army had been completed “accomplished.” Yet what the President didn’t tell us was that he had no plan for dealing wit a post- Saddam Hussein Iraq. He had no plan for dealing with what he most assuredly should have known would be a quickly deteriorating Iraq and a country on the brink of civil war.

Yes it appears that our President may have actually lit the fuse that would lead to a civil war between the Shias and the Sunnis, the two largest factions of Muslims in Iraq. Yes President Bush has been criticized rightfully so for failing to put together an exit strategy. But he should have been equally criticized on failing to put together a strategy of dealing with the two aggressive factions of Muslin people, the Sunnis and the Shiites with Saddam out of the picture. How could a President of any country not know and anticipate that two groups of people who had been at war with one another for more than a 1,000 years would not simply lay down their arms when the U.S. invasion into Iraq stared. Did Bush foolishly believe that the American troops would be greeted as liberators, when in fact he should have understood that most Sunnis, and even the Shiites regarded any intrusion by the west to be an utterly unacceptable act of defiance. What then was there to gain from such an invasion, other than that stack of lies that Bush fed us, which was an operation to prevent Iraq from using it’s acquired weapons of mass destruction and later, free Iraqi citizens from an imperialist dictator in Saddam Hussein. And the big question that is burning to be asked here is was the 1 trillion dollars money well spent. Since the war began, Iraq’s infrastructure has gone from adequate to below third world status. Its people have gone from poor, to impoverished. It’s manufacturing buildings completely destroyed. It’s economy in the toilet. Yes the 1 trillion dollars has been money well spent, and it is likely to cost another half a trillion dollars just to bring Iraq back to the status it was at before the invasion by the U.S. led coalition started in the first place.

But perhaps you are looking at this from purely an idealistic point of view. And you believe, like many, that the U.S. was fighting against an evil and murderous regime and that it is unfair to put a price tag on the freedom of any group of people. Well a recent study, commissioned by the United Nations found that many of the Iraqi people, who the U.S. liberated have become targets of Sunni violence. Attacks from Shia forces against Sunni forces have also escalated since the war began. Even a report by FOX NEWS shows that conflicts and uprisings between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims has risen dramatically since the U.S. led the coalition to remove Hussein from power. Not a big shock there. Due to the fact that Shiites make up the majority of Muslims in Iraq, now with Saddam removed, there is no one to stop the Shiites from slaughtering tens of thousands of Sunnis. It also finds that since the so called liberation of the Iraqi people, many of them have been forced to join Sunni and Shiite military outfits and fight against the very U.S. coalition (the people that freed them in the first place) to avoid being persecuted and having their families uprooted. That’s right since the U.S. invaded Iraq we have seen more and more Iraqi civilians, that were not affiliated on a military level before the war, becoming militarized simply to defend themselves and their families. So in essence we have armed more Iraqis.

So to put it another way, since Bush Co invaded Iraq they have basically made things worse. Violence among Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims has escalated to a level not seen since the major split of the two largest Muslim groups some 1,400 years ago. What was a dicey relationship beforehand is now a powder keg that has exploded. It has also become painfully obvious to everyone except the Bush Administration that with no structure or order in Iraq the violence will never end. Bush’s answer to fighting this riding tide of violence was the great “surge”. Yes the elementary approach to getting your ass kicked on the playground is to just add more of your buddies to the resistance and squelch that uprising. Failing to deal with the problem of why the escalation of violence occurred in the first place.

If I may for a moment use a Hillary Clinton phrase, and “willing suspension of disbelief” aside here, and look at this purely objectively. If you remove all party affiliations, and forget that you are a democrat, republican, independent, or whatever your affiliation and simply look at this from a “What we have gained”, versus “What it costs” perspective, you easily see the failures. Yes one would be hard to argue that removing a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein from power was certainly something worth gaining. However does anybody believe that another more brutal dictator wont win the hearts and minds of the Sunni people and once again dispel any notion that “democracy can work anywhere” as coined by George W. Bush himself. What’s worse is that when the next brutal dictator does take over Iraq, it will be clear to the rest of the world that America’s latest expedition to bring democracy to a communist region has failed miserably. A lesson that has apparently not been learned from Vietnam, and the countless subsequent flare-ups that the U.S. has been so inclined to lend its hand in. So in this case one could argue that what it costs the U.S. was more than 4,000 men and women in our military and no hope of ever securing a democracy in a region where the people themselves have never demanded it. The difference in American, and French rebellions for democracy against the government, were those revolutions were led and demanded by the people, not led by an opposing government. If history has taught us anything it’s that revolutions only succeed from the inside, not from the outside in.

The fact of the matter is that most of the people of Iraq don’t care about overthrowing their government for a democracy. You have two groups of people that are only interested in power. They care nothing about the fondness of the country, nothing that can make a Sunni believe that their viewpoints are any less worthy than a Shiite. Each of these groups cares only about making their version of Islam the word of the land. The Iraqi people are not, and more than likely will never be interested in fighting alongside the U.S. for a democracy. They like having a dictator, a ruler, and one centralized power movement. It’s just the Sunni’s want a Sunni leader and the Shiite’s want a Shiite leader.

You could also look at the war from a “what did we hope to gain” perspective. Loyalty, security, perhaps a strengthening relationship with the Islamic community could be gained. Well it is doubtful that the U.S. will gain any loyalty from either Sunni or Shiite Muslim when this conflict is over. Neither the Sunni’s nor the Shiite’s have been willing to fight alongside the American troops for any great length of time. The recent uprisings of Iran’s involvement has made the idea of security a mere fantasy than any kind of reality worth looking forward to, and finally strengthening ties with the Islamic world have taken several hits as the U.S. has been seen as insensitive to Muslims around the world.

All in all it’s hard to believe that a war could have started under the bogus pretenses of searching for “weapons of mass destruction” and end with the pretenses of “trying to bring democracy to the Iraqi people”. One idea is ludicrous, and the other was put together under the veil of night with lies and deliberate misinformation. For the record, the Bush administration will be viewed by historians for what they failed to do rather than for what they did do.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Profile Information
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
2521 posts
Member since 2002
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
My Forums
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Untitled 1
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.