Nov 29, 2013 at 10:34:44
“Calling anything that is done by choice a "sign of oppression" then legislatively removing that freedom to choose it is precisely what we should fight. Set aside what you think about hijab for a minute and consider this fundamental aspect of the problem. Set aside your worry about dilution of your culture and consider this basic civil rights argument. This is not about religion, feminism, secularism or oppression. This is about your basic right to choose to do what you wish to do that does not infringe on the freedoms of others. This is about a government that is saying to these women, "we know what's best for you".”
“I really don't get it...
How would the contributions of a private citizen be problematic?
If MSNBC or NBC are not making those contributions,
or if KO did not attribute the contributions to these corporations,
then where is the problem?”
mike42nola on Nov 5, 2010 at 14:45:52
“The reason for his bias?
MSNBC is going broke?
I could keep going.”
“For a liberal site like this one, the level of discourse in these comments has sunk to degrees of bigotry and intolerance that I'm more used to seeing on conservative sites. What a shame.”
camcat on Aug 11, 2010 at 12:49:26
“IMHO this site is under attack from paid trolls who particularly focus on any story with the word Muslim in it. I'm serious.”
MarcEdward on Aug 11, 2010 at 12:38:10
“"Liberal" site? Hardly. We get the whole spectrum here.
I don't think there is any bigotry in not liking the Saudi government and their many actions against American interests and their sponsorship of anti-Shia terrorism. I have no problem with Islam, but I do look forward when we can find a substitute for oil and put this tin plated dictatorship out of business once and for all.”
caveman1313 on Aug 11, 2010 at 12:36:29
“you shouldn't visit conservative sites, they will challenge your thoughts and ideals. not a good thing because it takes a fair amount of effort to reprogram your thinking.”
wtf-please on Aug 11, 2010 at 12:30:11
“come out of the closet.. quit visiting conservative sites!”
“Finally, some common sense! Thanks Mr. Borosage. We have such short term memories and behave like children with ADHD but not on ritalin. Nothing of real significance changes fast. Radical changes can cause as much damage as good, but slow change requires us to be patient.
I'm willing to wait.
I like the pay parity bill, CHIP, a progressive budget, a firm date of ending the Iraq war, international relations that are increasingly friendly, a somewhat more balanced position on Israeli-Palestinian issues, an abandonment of torture, a slow but definite dismantling of Gitmo, an actual step in the right direction for health care after decades of inaction, a deliberate assessment of the war in Afghanistan rather than knee-jerk "I'm the decider in-chief" type reactions, real environmentalists in charge of what relates to the environment, and an amazing family model for us to look up to.
How is it possible that all this is poor performance for a man on the job for 10 months?
To be favoured by more than half of the country in spite of the economy, unemployment, TWO wars, and an activated loud and nasty opposition... to be over 50% is incredibly remarkable.
I'm tired of the complainers. We fought to get this man in power. Instead of complaining, let's mobilize and actually contribute to the change we are asking for. Wasn't that the whole point of the campaign?
Resting on our laurels and criticizing is not the answer to our progressive requests.”
pearlx2 on Nov 4, 2009 at 23:12:31
“Exactly right. Progressives tend to forget that we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The President expected help from us when he wooed us to elect him to help ourselves. He never said he would be able to do it all by himself.
Congress has to be made to do the right thing, to reject the lobbyists. It's hard, and kind of insane, because our entire system is built on campaign finance by the corporations. We really need to somehow get to public finance of elections some time in the near future. Otherwise, it will always be a dog fight to get anything done.”
bluerthanblue15 on Nov 4, 2009 at 21:45:05
“My sentiments exactly.
Patience is the key word in your post and is something we all need a good dose of these days.”
“Look, I do not disagree with the general sentiment here. However, you clearly know very little about Bin Laden's family and their wealth. Their business became what it is now primarily through major infrastructure contracts that they executed for the Saudi government. They have made a lot of money, but not directly from Oil. Obviously, oil was the source of the money that the Saudi government paid them with. Arguing such an immediate link between oil and Bin Laden's terrorism network is too superficial to be credible.
I believe we do have to consider the risk inherent in all forms of money transfer to areas of the world where wealth could eventually trickle down to terrorist groups. It would seem much more important in my view, however, to pay attention to direct financing of these activities... such as what took place in the 80s when the CIA financed groups in Afghanistan like... BIN LADEN's!”
My blood is boiling.
Amy Goodman is the most honest and objective voice in the progressive movement. Her integrity trumps that of all the journalists I know combined.
We've become a police state! How is this different than the Chinese during the Olympics?
There has to be a public outcry. This must hit the MSM.”
“"The kind of people who regularly read" DERSHOWITZ's despicable drivel "may actually believe that" his description of Finkelstein "is accurate. Most relatively intelligent people will recognize it as a really despicable attempt at" demonizing the sane Jewish academic who dared to speak truth to power and expose Dershowitz for the fraud that he is. "Had a right-wing academic" been under this form of bigoted attack by the likes of Dershowitz, "he would have been brought up on academic discliplinary charges", just like the Left-wing Finkelstein had been, "considering the atmosphere of selective political correctness that dominates so many campuses today" with thanks to Dershowitz and his ilk for creating such a toxic environment.
Every time Dershowitz speaks or writes, he proves further how correct Finkelstein has been all along. This country's academic freedom is going down the tubes, thanks to the likes of Dershowitz.”
“Where in the article did the author mention "POW" status? As far as I could tell, he referred to these individuals as simply "prisoners", and quoted the administration's use of the term "enemy combatant".
The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the administration refuses to give these prisoners the label POWs, and yet does not charge them with criminal offences. It is a state of limbo.
“I had an inkling that Obama was going to do something like this. I was really hoping he didn't.
Alas, he has many plusses, but this is definitely a minus in my book.
He gets my vote, but I hope he can listen to the voice of reason once he's president and not just do what previous presidents have done for the P-I conflict: Keep things in the terrible shape they're in.”
“This argument is disingenuous. The RBC, in fact, had no authority to offer its own delegate distribution plan. And it didn't. It accepted the only offer it could possibly accept: The plan submitted by the state party. It did the same for Florida.
Had the RBC accepted a candidate's plan, we would be talking about "pro-candidate" bias as a precedent that would forever taint the party.
The RBC DID NOT SUGGEST THIS PLAN.
It was the Michigan Democratic Party.
If you see this as unfair, there is nothing that Obama did to contribute to this outcome.
Take your grievances up with the state's party and spare us the lame blame game.”
TuneOutTheMedia on Jun 1, 2008 at 22:42:12
“The RBC was comprised of 13 members who openly supported Senator Clinton, 8 who openly supported Senator Obama, and 7 who were undeclared. There were 28 RBC members, but only 27 could vote to resolve each state (as a Florida member and a Michigan member had to abstain when voting on their states).
The Obama representative endorsed the Florida delegate compromise which was approved UNANIMOUSLY, 27-0.
The Obama representative argued for a 50-50 split of the Michigan delegates, while the Michigan representatives argued for a 69-59 split (in favor of Senator Clinton). Though the Obama team had the votes to approve the 50-50 split, they conceded to Michigan's 69-59 split in the interests of party unity. The 69-59 split (Michigan's proposal) was approved by a 19-8 vote (including the affirmative votes of many Clinton supporters).
Why does Mr. Davis blame Senator Obama for the outcomes of these votes?
“Interesting. So are you saying that if Obama is the nominee, New York and California will be in the Republican column? The absurdity of the electoral vote argument will not be lost on any of the superdelegates, who BTW know a thing or two about politics.
States that have always been blue will remain blue no matter who the nominee is, and the same for red states. It all boils down to the swing states. When you want to know who would win a swing state, you don't look at primary results, you look at comparisons of match-ups: Clinton vs McCain and Obama vs McCain.”