no it isn't unfortunant only for those who oppose Isreal's policy of Genocide. Its unfortunant for everyone.
It is unfortunant for the 3000 families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks since the impetus to that attack tracks directly back to U.S policy wrt Israel.
It is unfortunant for the thousands of families who have lost loved ones in the "war on terror" which would never have been launched if not for the 9/11 attacks.
It is unfortunant for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have died as a result of our illegal invasion and occupation of their country which tracks back to the 9/11 attacks which were a direct response to our policies regarding Israel.
It is unfortunant for the millions of Iraqi's who's lives have been turned upside down by that same invasion.
It is unfortunant for the families of the Palestenians who have lost their children to Israeli tanks.
U.S policy wrt Israel is horrible the blind support for Israel in their most heineious behavior is unconcionable.
And I say no person has a right to claim to be a Progressive or Liberal or a leftist of sort and support the current policies.
Genocide is not a progressive value. And Israel's policies are by definition genocidal.
To Paraphrase Conel West. Until a baby born in Palestine is as valued as one born in Tel Aviv or New York City there is no progressive movement.
Israeli Appoligist who claim to be Liberals or Progressives disgust me more than the wingers. Because you've not looked deep at the ramifications of your ideology you're principles are only superficial and skin deep.
You are only progressive when you see benefit to yourself which is just as selfish and destructive as that of the right.
I'm not claiming that Hamas is much better but I can say this with no uncertain terms. If someone bombed my house and killed my KID there would be hell to pay!
Israel's policy of agression only perpetuates the violence. And the simple fact is that Israel has the power advantage in this relationship and it is the key tennet of leftism to empower the powerless. Because inequal power relationships always result in abuse.
Perhaps you should actually watch the subject upon which you are commenting. It would make it easier to avoid looking like an idiot.
It wasn't 1 or two individuals it was a dozen or more including elected officials.
The interviewer did an excellent job of shoving these peoples hipocricy back in their faces. In the end though there are fuck heads on both sides and the insistence of some on pretending that only the Palestinians are behaving badly is shown to be patently false.
I don't agree that there is any ambiguity in the wording. While there might have been a justification given in the initial clause the second clause is quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a individual right and as such federal bans on arms are unconstitutional.
This does not mean that all laws regarding firearms are automatically unconstitutional obviously we aren't going to allow felons serving time to posses firearms for instance. And I think most people will agree that individual citizens shouldn't be packing stinger missiles and rocket propelled grenades (or any grenades for that matter)
The problem with gun control is two fold. One there are just too many guns you simply will not be able to turn this into a gun free Utopia this is not Europe or Asia where arms have been historically restricted.
It's a political loser. Fighting this battle gets too many peoples back up and makes it more difficult to bring over voters who would otherwise be sympathetic to our positions. Lose the anti-gun label and the west and south open up substantially for democratic conquest.
By continuing to fight this losing battle we make it that much harder to win on more important and more pressing matters of economic and social justice which would do far more to reduce incidents of gun violence than all the bans you could dream up.
You have to look at the problem holistically. Build a more socially and economically just society and you reduce crime reduce crime and you reduce gun violence. Provide better medical and psychological treatment and you end up with fewer people likely to resort to violence and there for less gun violence.
Continue to concentrate on the gun rather than the shooters and you will continue to have to fight those who simply have a different view on the second amendment even though we might be able to find commonality with them on other issues.
It's simple in my mind. We progressives are on our best footing when we're on firm constitutional footing.
Gun control laws especially bans dreampt up by people who obviously have little actual knowledge on the subject matter undermine our credibility and run directly counter to the 2nd Amendment. Which while it might have a mention of a militia does not limit ownership of arms to those who are members of said militia.
To qualify as reasonable a gun law must actually BE REASONABLE. When pro-gun control people rattle on about automatic weapons and assault weapons with out understanding what exactly each entails or such as the case with the normally wonderful John Stewart and his writers making fun of Biden refering to his Berretta shotgun with the quip about Berreta being pistol only demonstrates their ignorance to those of us who understand that Berreta is gun manufacturer who yes indeed does actually make shotguns.
Arbitrary bans against asault weapons ignoring the fact that there is no mechanical difference between the operation of an AR15 "assault riffle" and a Semi-automatic hunting rifle.
Those who refer to semi-automatic pistols as "automatics"
Yes guns are dangerous yes the availability of guns contributes to gun violence but sometimes a little safety has to be sacrificed for liberty.
And yes I do understand what the consequences can be. I grew up fatherless because of a gun but I still own several of my own which I keep locked safely away in a box for which I keep the only key out of reach and access of my children.
We either take the constitution and the BOR as they are or we work to ammend it. To do anything else is pure hypocricy that will leave us vulnerable to attacks from the right. Who have no respect for the document including the 2nd ammendment and wouldn't changing it to fit their purposes when they could simply ignore it.
It's politics. When oil was $4 bucks a gallon and people were being squeezed for every penny there were worth and the oil compnanies were raking in money hand over fist a windfall profits tax wouldn't require the expenditure of much political capital. With gas at $1.60 a gallon it would require more political capital to push it through and that capital could be better used on more pressing concerns.
Once gas creeps back to $3 a gallon and the oil companies start raking in record profits again then it will be an easier goal to acheive.
What I find amazing is that this peice of crap diary made the rec list with just 2 recs. Sad.
There is no such thing as a Reagan Democrat. Most of those people have been staunch Republicans for 28 years its time to call them what they are. Republicans.
I too have been on both sides of the ideological devide. I was a rabit right wing libertarian in my youth but became a left liberal as I got older and actually saw what a failure Conservative policies and ideas are.
Hillary followed a similar path being raised republican but coming to her senses when she became mature enough to see the world for what it was.
She is not a right wing democrats she's no blue dog either. She's a yellow dog dem who made some calculated decisions regarding foriegn policy that she thought would bolster her electoral chances.
She bet wrong on the Iraq war then she repeated the mistake with the Iran bill. and that more than any other reason was why she lost the primary.
She allied herself with her husbands inner political circle and was not well served by them.
I've always considered Hillary to the left of Bill. And thought that could she divorce herself from the DLC crowd she'd have been a hell of a politician. But she didn't and she isn't.
This is part of why I'm ok with the SOS position. She'll be able to get out of campaign mode and away from the triangulating DLC twits who have served her so poorly.
So while she may not be a great politician she may yet be able to be remembered as a great public servant.
Translation: You can't actually argue on the merits so you're just tossing out outlandish crap.
Most of the Clinton bagage was nonsence, The GOP spent 40 million dollars investigating them and the worse they could come up with was an affair.
But to pretend that it and all the other garbage wasn't going to come up was simply stupid and accusing people who pointed that reality out of CDS is equally stupid.
Had the situation been reversed during the primary and Clinton been winning in March and had mathmatically eliminated Obama I would have been just as irritated at him for attacking the process.
Because attacking a candidate is one thing attempting to deligitimize their victory was something else all together. And that is what the Clinton camp did.
Now don't get me wrong I had other policy issues with her that made Obama my prefered choice in this race. But I've spent plenty of my life defending both Clintons from baseless attacks and would have done so again happily had she actually won the nomination.
But she didn't and the fact that she wasn't going to was obvious to anyone who could do some basic arithmatic that she wasn't going to be able to after the Texas Primary.
Yes in the end we won anyway inspite of many of the commentors and diarist who tried to undermine the cause here and on other supposedly progressive sites.
But that does not mean that you get to just rewrite the history of what happened in the primary to make Clinton die hards look better.
I've backed far more losing candidates than winning candidates in my lifeso I know what it means to be on the losing side of a fight.
But ignoring the reality isn't going to help going forward.
Obama won, he won because he was the better candidate who ran the better campaign than all his competitors he won because he motivated enough people to get out and vote who normally sit on their ass and let history pass them by. He won because millions of people chipped in their hard earned money because their desperation for a better path out overwhelmed the desire for consumer goods.
He won because thousands of people got on the phones and out on the streets to fire people up.
He did not win because of the economy cratering he did not win because McCain ran a terible campaign. It wasn't luck it wasn't chance, and it wasn't destiny.
He won because he had the skill to make all the things happen that needed to happen. Which is why people like me supported him in the first place. Because we could see that and you couldn't. Not because we had drank any kool-aid or hated Clinton.
And all this nonsense about kool-aid drinking and cults of personality is nothing more than projection.
Oh yeah and it's fault of us Obama supporters that the primary wars are continuing when we respond to some nonsence posted by a Clinton supporter who hasn't gotten over the fact that their candidate didn't win.
This diary and the entire contents of the comments section is nothing more than a rahash of the primary fight.
I fail to see how pointing out that thinking that people who were petty enough to impeach a president over something as inconsequencial as a consensual sexual affair would hardly give Hillary a free ride is in any way indicative of CDS.
If Hillary had won instead of secret muslim conspiracy nonsense it would have been wall to wall Vince Foster, TravelGate and Monica. That's just reality
My point was that many people pretended that stuff like that wouldn't come up. That somehow Obama was more vulnerable than Clinton was as if she wouldn't have been named the most liberal senator if she'd have won the nomination.
That somehow the Republican attack machine would be any less brutal towards Clinton this nonsense that she had been more thuroughly vetted which was nothing more than the fact that her baggage was already researched.
That sort of crap goes with the territory as a progressive and a democrat pretending otherwise was naive.
But all that was simply normal acceptable politics, Even her tacit endorsement of McCain over Obama was just the usual campaign rhetoric.
That's expected. It was her and her supporters attempts to undermine the democratic nominating process which earned my ire and contempt. And that is something I do not as easily forget or forgive as the normal nonsence spewed on the campaign trail.
Not at all.
most countries are not actively oppressing other peoples. One can argue that perhaps they are oppressing elements of their own peoples and that has some validity. It also explains the abolishinist movement and the Civil rights movement which were indeed acts of rebellion against the standing order of a society.
But when a nation such as England or the United States sends troops overthrow or provides material support to oppressive regimes it is most certainly the responsibility of the people of the nations in question for those actions.
Because we have the power to change that behavior. That does not mean that we should never interfere in other nations afairs only that it is the natural response of the peoples of the oppressed country to target those responsible for their situation.
And that they do indeed have some moral justification for that action. If not how do we justify attacking Afgahnistan in response to the 9/11 attacks?
For morality and ethics to have any validity they must be reciprical.
Yeah I remember Alegre's temper tantrum strike over on KOS. I also remember countless shill diaries living on the rec list here. I got banned from talkleft for having the temerity to point out what a cesspool Armando and Jeralyn were allowing to fester by tolerating all the anti-Obama nonsence and running off all their Pro-Obama readers.
The biggest break between the Obama camp and the Clinton camp in the primaries was that the Obama side could do basic arithmatic.
For the record it never bothered me that Clinton didn't conceed. What bothered me was that she tried to delegitimize the democratic nominating process which she and her husband were instrumental in devising to begin with. That she wanted the rules to be changed midgame when it became obvious to anyone with half a brain that she had no chance otherwise.
What amazed me about the Clinton "supporters" was how often they could go off about kool aid drinking Obamabots and not see the log sticking out of their eyeballs. That they couldn't see the irony of that while Obama was saying "we we we" Hillary was saying "me me me" and they were bussy screaming "she she she".
That they could pretend that somehow Obama would get destroyed in a general election but Clinton would somehow get a magical free ride from the people who impeached her husband for a blow job?
That they could with no shame claim that it was wrong to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan where Clinton agreed to disenfranchise them back when Obama wasn't considered a serious contender, But perfectly OK to disenfranchise the millions who voted for him in legitimate primaries by asking the "Super Delegates" to over turn our choice.
Clinton wold have been a fine candidate and you'd have a hard time passing a hair between them on policy differences. There voting records in the Senate for the time they were both in are damned near identical they were co-sponsors of each others bills in most cases.
But Obama is, was and will always be the superior politician and when it comes to winning the presidency the best bet will always be on the better politician.
I saw that early and that's why I supported him over her. That and her ties to the DLC which I've always viewed as the defeatist wing of the party.
I'll admit I have reservations about Clinton at State and keeping Gates on at Defense. But one thing Obama demostrated to me conclusively in this campaign is that he's sharp as a tack and doesn't take these decisions lightly. And everytime I thought he made a mistake I later looked back and said "yep he did the right thing".
You gotta get elected first to get anything done and while my sympathies will always live with the Gravel's and Kuciniches of the world it'll be the Obama's and LBJ's who make things happen (Yeah I think of Obama as more of an LBJ than a JFK).