SI
SI

 Politics | Politics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Geoff Altman who wrote (438287)7/31/2011 7:37:49 PM
From: goldworldnet2 Recommendations   of 537944
 
If Cloward/Piven isn't their strategy, it's having the same effect.

* * *

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: FUBHO7/31/2011 7:40:57 PM
   of 537944
 
Syria: 100 die in crackdown as Assad sends in his tanks Activists describe massacre in central city of Hama after armoured units break through barricades to crush protests




Ian Black, Middle East editor and Nour Ali in Damascus guardian.co.uk, Sunday 31 July 2011 20.53 BST

    guardian.co.uk 



    Syria's uprising faced one of its defining moments when President Bashar al-Assad followed in his father's footsteps and sent in tanks to crush protests in the central city of Hama, killing up to 100 people and triggering a new wave of international outrage.

    The National Organisation for Human Rights said that in total 136 people had been killed in Hama and three other towns. Activists described a massacre after armoured units ended a month-long siege to smash through makeshift barricades around the city just after dawn on the eve of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

    International media are still largely banned from Syria but citizen journalists ensured that the scale and brutality of the crackdown was visible to the outside world. Video clips posed on YouTube showed
    unarmed civilians taking cover from shelling and heavy machine-gun fire as hospitals struggled to cope with 200 casualties by mid-morning...

    But apart from ritual condemnation, the latest bloodletting looks unlikely to trigger any significant international response, given the sharp divisions among the veto-wielding five permanent members of the UN security council. Limited sanctions on key officials imposed by the US and EU have been shrugged off by the regime.

    "It's incredible to consider that since March the regime has slaughtered over 1,500 people, arrested thousands, tortured people to death, and yet the UN security council has yet to issue a resolution," said Chris Doyle of the Council for Arab-British Understanding. "Russia, China and other countries such as Brazil should have to explain their appalling positions."

    An activist group, Avaaz, said last week Syrian forces had killed 1,634 people in the course of their crackdown during four and a half months of protest, while at least 2,918 had disappeared. A further 26,000 had been arrested, many of them beaten and tortured, and 12,617 remained in detention, it said.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    To: KLP who wrote (438259)7/31/2011 7:46:09 PM
    From: Sr K   of 537944
     
    what is a TOTUS?

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    To: Sr K who wrote (438293)7/31/2011 7:52:41 PM
    From: unclewest4 Recommendations   of 537944
     
    what is a TOTUS?


    Teleprompter of The United States

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    To: TideGlider who wrote (438197)7/31/2011 8:24:29 PM
    From: goldworldnet9 Recommendations   of 537944
     
    This is the same video at youtube. At this time the dislikes are less than one half of one percent. Rubio definitely connected with the situation at hand and I agree with your assessment that Rubio should be chosen as VP for the Republican 2012 ticket.

    Marco Rubio Says "Save The Country" & John Kerry Questions him

    youtube.com 

    * * *

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    From: FUBHO7/31/2011 8:47:23 PM
       of 537944
     
    Bollywood vs. Jihad Which is the bigger threat to fundamentalist Islam: the Pentagon or Mumbai? Shikha Dalmia from the August/September 2011 issue

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/27/bollywood-vs-jihad

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    To: FUBHO who wrote (438296)7/31/2011 8:49:16 PM
    From: FUBHO5 Recommendations   of 537944
     
    Obama the Immoderate The facade of our supposedly temperate and judicious leader falls for good. David Harsanyi | July 27, 2011





    There is still a slim chance that this summer's debt ceiling debate won't end with demagoguery's winning the day. That's an unusual development, yes, and something to be thankful for, however fleeting the interruption.

    After all, whenever politicians moan and groan about how Washington isn't "working," or, as the president likes to say, whenever his agenda crashes against democracy, that the system is "broken," well, it's probably not. This debate, in fact, is more substantive than most. Because of a genuine ideological divide in D.C. and a partisan division of power, the president and Congress have been forced to wrestle with the brutal economic future they have done so much to hasten.

    And in the process, we've seen the facade of our supposedly temperate and judicious leader fall for good.

    When Barack Obama turned down a bipartisan debt ceiling deal last week, he proved himself as rigid an ideologue as anyone in the bunch. He simply can't support any piece of legislation that doesn't feature some "spread it around" component. And he can't broker a process because any policy that doesn't feature some element of punishing the rich simply isn't a "balanced" approach.

    We have been spoon-fed a narrative that casts one side as the malleable and cooperative and sane and the other as the hopelessly inflexible. The president is imbued with a superhuman rational disposition. And time and time again, he has moderated his position for the common good. Look! Someone on the far left is angry with him for not having the power of a monarch. He must be a centrist! Is this not the man who shelved a single-payer government plan that MoveOn.org wanted for the more reasonable option of forcing us to participate in a government-run monopoly?

    Yet in reality, an Obama "compromise" entails pulling back from the entire Daily Kos agenda—"the middle"—and adopting the most liberal policy position that is politically feasible in a rather moderate nation. For the first two years of his presidency, the only debate he had was with his own side.


    So if things stand, this will be the first genuine political victory for the economic wing of the Tea Party. Tax hikes are not being seriously considered in any plan on the table, as the horrified pangs of distress from the left can attest. No amount of Tim Geithner's politically motivated scare stories or the demonization of the tea party by the deeply sane wing of America's punditry is likely to undo this reality when a deal finally comes down.

    We've heard since the start of the debate that some House Republicans were crazy for wanting the debt ceiling to be a debt ceiling. We've heard Democrats falsely claim that failing to hike the ceiling means the nation defaults. Never mind that the fringe position matches rather neatly with the majority of Americans, who in nearly every poll oppose raising the ceiling. These riffraff have probably taken the debt ceiling too literally. Or perhaps they haven't been sufficiently tenderized by the barrage of fear-mongering. Perhaps another prime-time speech blaming the previous president might do the trick.

    Recently, Obama joked with a La Raza crowd, "The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform." He was joking, but when many of the crowd cheered heartily and chanted "Yes, you can," we learned a little about expectations on the left. No doubt, Obama would like things to go a lot more smoothly. But without two houses of Congress jumping off the ideological deep end with him, Washington is working a lot better than it used to. That's bad news for Obama.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    From: DMaA7/31/2011 8:50:36 PM
    5 Recommendations   of 537944
     
    The essence of a RINO is that he has a visceral and personal dislike for conservatives.

    Here's how McCain responded:

    "As the senator may know, I came to the floor a couple of days ago and made that comment, and the senator from illinois and I are in agreement, point number one. you can prioritize -- I think the senator and every economist I know literally would agree. You can prioritize for awhile where you want what remaining money is left, but the message you send to the world, not just our markets but to the world, that the United States of America is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation. We are in agreement. Number one: passage through the United States Senate of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the United States, as i said before, is not fair to the American people because, because the terrible obstructionists on this side of the aisle, the terrible people, their flawed philosophical views about the future of america is not going to allow to us get 20 additional votes from your side, assuming that you get all 47 since it requires 67 votes to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. so i think it was not only wrong assessment ... I think it's not fair to the american people to say we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution through the Senate at this time."

    blogs.mcall.com 

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    From: LindyBill7/31/2011 8:58:14 PM
    3 Recommendations   of 537944
     
    Anything promised in an "out year" is a lie.


    Leaders Reach Deal to Raise Debt Ceiling
    Framework Will Be Presented to Party Caucuses on Monday By CARL HULSE and JENNIFER STEINHAUER 5 minutes ago Congressional leaders of both parties and President Obama said they had agreed to a framework for a fiscal deal that they will present to their caucuses Monday morning, moving Congress closer to taking up a measure that could pass both the House and Senate.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    To: LindyBill who wrote (438299)7/31/2011 9:07:30 PM
    From: goldworldnet   of 537944
     
    Wow! Very surprised by this.

    The agreement would raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion, enough to last into early next year, with spending cuts of $917 locked in for the first ten years, and an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts to be worked out on a bipartisan basis as the price for another increase in the debt ceiling next year.

    nytimes.com 

    * * *

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.