 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
NYC_SKP's Journal - Archives
FUCK Dick Cheney!He's an evil bastard, filled with hate, and I hope to hell he gets his due within my lifetime. Fucker.  Try to remember the economic climate when Social Security was first introduced.
"A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50%" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Securi... (United_States) And think about the growing numbers of people losing jobs and, as a result, health coverage for their families. And think about the president we have and our majority in both houses of congress. The climate is nearly ideal for movement on sweeping Health Care reform measures that may lead to universal coverage, beginning with coverage for children and families, and then for all who aren't covered by plans through their jobs. Not this week, not next month, but some time very soon.  This is about the DHS claiming extraordinary "flexibility" with your rights to privacy.
The problem: * Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches. * The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.” * But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States. * As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit. More: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoul... and http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res200810...    I'm going to miss the latest breaking scandals, the primary wars, the rants, the calls for calm and the calls for concern. I'm even going to miss DUing the polls, especially this PBS Poll: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html (You know the one.) So, I'd like to extend a special thanks to all these DUers, who've helped make my experience here particulary rewarding: (And, my apologies in advance to all who make this a terrific board, but I failed to list) JimGinPA ! Voice for Peace !! Bicoastal swampg8r grantcart cliffordu graywarrior seabeyond sfexpat2000 Skittles Beacool FrenchieCat Journalgrrl larissa ihavenobias 1corona4u sandnsea phrigndumass kristopher BlooInBloo vaberella cliffordu JeffR bob_weaver seabeyond HughMoran FLDem5 zidzi justgamma lonestarnot Sensitivity falcom97 nc4bo oldtime dfl_er jasonberlin chimpsrsmarter GreenPartyVoter babylonsister JenniferZ zidzi unfrigginreal ColbertWatcher Kerrytravelers prodn2000 sniffa dbmk BrentTaylor Ichingcarpenter Swamp Rat yellowdogintexas PylesMalfunction Drunken Irishman New-ish members: Jackeens_for_Obama and rexi, Favorite mods: Heidi, mvd and The Magistrate, Sir. I'm going to miss every god damned thing about GD-P, I guess I'll see you all in GD, the Lounge, and elswhere...   . . . . In which people tell friends and pollsters that they're McCain all the way but vote for Obama on election day.
An attempt to create a Wikipedia was met with mostly disapproval. My original entry is gone, all that's left is the deletion discussion. **************** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art... ____________________________________ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama effect From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Jump to: navigation, search The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Obama effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC) * For some reason, there's a page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Effect with different content than this one, and that page is linked to from the article. Someone who knows what's going on should fix this, please? --Rividian (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC) o I fixed it, and will post what the user said in that AFD below this comment. But review to make sure I did it right is welcome. --Rividian (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) * This is a perfectly valid entry for inclusion on Wikipedia. The "Obama Effect" is a term that has been used and, though new to the political lexicon, has every right to exist. There is no justification for deletion, if there improvement in the article is required, then this can be done. Censorship, however, of a new term, is nonsensical.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) — Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note Your summary when creating the article sums it up: A potential difference between the way voters in the 2008 presidential election respond to surveys and polls and the way they might actually vote which screams original research. And censorship??? PaLEESE. Go ahead and call us racists, too, while you are at it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete. It's utterly unreferenced, and purely speculative anyway... it refers to something that might be a term if a certain thing happens. This is not encyclopedic topic, based on facts in evidence. --Rividian (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete per WP:NEO. And I swear I'll pistol whip the next person who says "shenanigans". MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete as pure wp:neo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete Unproven speculation. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete as a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete poitical sh... sh... stuff. JuJube (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete using the Wikipedia isn't for this kind of stuff effect. Just because a neologism is used doesn't make it notable or inclusion worthy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete as the article does not establish that this has become a notable coined phrase. In fact all but one of the articles sourced seem to simply use it as a general descriptor. No prejudice against recreation if time reveals that the term "Obama Effect" actually picks up some equity, and there might be something worth merging with the main Obama article and/or the article on his campaign (I assume there is one), but I don't sense any viability as a separate article at this time. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) * Conceeded the the term is not yet well enough established to warrant an entry. I noticed that similar political terms, for example "Reagan Democrat", have come to earn an entry and so we might expect that, in time, "Obama Effect" will likewise have a wikipedia entry that meets the standards. Bscottbscott (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC) o That is a good point. The fact is, most similar terms never rise to notability beyond the moment. Your conclusion is also correct that the term *might* rise in notability, if he wins, and if the term continues to be used. It just isn't there *yet* (if ever). PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC) * Delete, neologism, unlikely to be ever seen again after the election. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC) * Strong keep: The article is not outstanding, but it does not violate WP:NEO, which states, "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). This article, weak as its current draft is, is thoroughly sourced. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.  . .And anyone that wants to piss all over his chances this time or in 2012 can STFU!!! I'm getting pretty tired of this shit, if we can't talk about the primaries then we shouldn't be able to talk about the fucking 2012 election. And anyone that says, "talk me down" can just stay up there or take a fucking jump. We Win This Time, and We Win in 2012!Just heard it on MSNBC, God love whoever said it!
I'm hoping that it catches on, it's just brilliant. Say it with me now... HATE TALK EXPRESS. HATE TALK EXPRESS!I think it's "catchy"! Just now on the live stream, (thanks Hope and Change).
As a former public school teacher who lived with the introduction of NCLB, I sympathize with the teacher who just spoke. Like her, I left the classroom, (though still support educational programs through a non-profit agency.) Barack Obama's plans are music to teachers' ears. Edited for spelling....jeez...teachers are notorious for typos! My 1000th post, that is.
I always enjoy and agree with your comments, so why not? One thing I've learned during my short time here is that much of the recent division seems to come from the misperception or expectation (by a few) that progressives are a monolithic block. Some of the surprises for me included learning that there is considerable support for the use of nuclear energy and for the second amendment. This recent infighting and outrage so misses this important point; that we will find our greatest strength in celebrating what we have in common. Conversely, our greatest weakness is that we often do not manage our differences very well, and the opposition takes advantage of it expertly. These are principles that Barack Obama understands and is able to use with great expertise, I believe. So, thank you for all of your great comments, and for your humor. Cheers, DU members of faith and reason, this post is for you. |
Profile Information  NYC_SKP
39721 posts Member since Thu May 29th 2008 California, CA, United States Male
style=background:#FFE4E1
Blogroll Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Fewer people getting married. By No Elephants I'm sorry to hear things have been so bad over here, and here's why -- By Leopolds Ghost Happy Fathers' Day to all the Dads. By No Elephants Deleted. Triple post. By No Elephants Deleted. Triple post. By No Elephants NSA vs Snowden -- Follow the Money By kentuck Jeb Bush : 'Immigrants create more businesses than do US citizens' and "are more fertile..." By seafan Hai DU By Leopolds Ghost Enthusiast, did you get a pm from me this morning? By No Elephants Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
