Originally Posted by Deb C

The article sounds like a full fledged threat by the MIC. If they don't get what they want, they will make, the already growing again unemployment, even worse. I see an image of this giant war machine demanding to be fed in spite of so many citizens struggling to get by.

Good catch.

And on top of that, the Republican controlled house can refuse to go along with any steps, be they wise long term or not, to forestall dealing with this until after January 20, 2013. The uncertainty of over a million military contractor jobs disappearing quickly will certainly dampen any recovery that we should experience from lower fuel prices and the fact that many American have paid down significant personal debt over the past three years. It's almost certain to make the 2012 election more favorable to the GOP than it would otherwise be.

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants

This is HUGE. Obama has secured the Latino vote for at least a generation. The GOP must either dump the bigots or else become irrelevant. As things are, demographics are not on the Republicans' side, this is why their racism has become so blatant and hysterical since Obama was elected.

-Opposing Illegals is not bigotry; pandering to Mexican La Rasa-style racists is pandering to bigotry. Most Hispanics (of Mexican descent or otherwise get that):

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...reform-mirage/

Even on an issue as controversial and racially-charged as Arizona’s recent immigration law, a Quinnipiac poll from earlier this year found Hispanics almost evenly divided: 49 percent opposed the law, but 47 percent supported it...

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1738

As you may know, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed a law that requires police to verify the legal status of someone they have already stopped or arrested if they suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Do you approve or disapprove of Arizona's immigration law?
Hsp Approve 47 Disapprove 49 DK/NA 5

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...Defense contractors are already facing $487 billion in cuts over the next decade that were approved as part of last year’s Budget Control Act. They may face more than $50 billion in additional cuts over the next 10 years since Congress was unable to agree on a plan to reduce the deficit...

...with this response from Deb:

Originally Posted by Deb C

The article sounds like a full fledged threat by the MIC. If they don't get what they want, they will make, the already growing again unemployment, even worse...

-So, let me get this straight. Defense contractors are supposed to continue hiring people to fulfill contracts which they are not going to get?

Fraud confirmedin Texas. Election judge says votes were switched.
Submitted by Dr.K.Research on Mon, 06/11/2012- 13:29
inDaily Paul Liberty Forum


CouldRon Paul have gotten 72% of the vote instead of 12%? Anne Beckett, electionjudge for Austin (Travis County), says it is so.

Infact, she did an entrance poll of Republican voters for their party preferenceand says that a minimum of 66% offered on their own that they came to vote forRon Paul. As she polled them she wrote a line on her hand, then, counted thetotal voters. A minimum of 66% and as high as 72% of all the votes went forPaul, NOT Romney (she wishes to be conservative, but says that at the bareminimum 66%, not 12%, of the votes went to Paul).

Forcredibility it is important to note that she took a complete poll and was therefrom 6:00 a.m. until closing (12 hours). The precinct she judged was 247-R.

http://www.dailypaul.com/239494/frau...ht-drkrbn-live

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants

This is HUGE. Obama has secured the Latino vote for at least a generation. The GOP must either dump the bigots or else become irrelevant. As things are, demographics are not on the Republicans' side, this is why their racism has become so blatant and hysterical since Obama was elected.

Good politics. Many of them will become voters... and it is best for all concerned that these people leave the shadows of our economic order and become the most productive citizens that they can be.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Opposing Illegals is not bigotry; pandering to Mexican La Rasa-style racists is pandering to bigotry. Most Hispanics (of Mexican descent or otherwise get that):

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...reform-mirage/

Even on an issue as controversial and racially-charged as Arizona’s recent immigration law, a Quinnipiac poll from earlier this year found Hispanics almost evenly divided: 49 percent opposed the law, but 47 percent supported it...

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1738

As you may know, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed a law that requires police to verify the legal status of someone they have already stopped or arrested if they suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Do you approve or disapprove of Arizona's immigration law?
Hsp Approve 47 Disapprove 49 DK/NA 5



...with this response from Deb:



-So, let me get this straight. Defense contractors are supposed to continue hiring people to fulfill contracts which they are not going to get?

La Raza-style racists? Nice strawman.

Originally Posted by Weave

Love the rank hypocrisy here. Of course George W. Bush also took decisive and unorthodox actions against terrorism during his tenure. You lefties complained about his wiretapping, enhanced interrogations etc at length but find (less Deb C who is at least consistant) having a "kill list" just fine and dandy.

I guess waterboarding is not ok, but outright assassinations are?

You do have a point there. Liberals should at least question some of Obama's actions against "terrorism."

Originally Posted by Deb C

The article sounds like a full fledged threat by the MIC. If they don't get what they want, they will make, the already growing again unemployment, even worse. I see an image of this giant war machine demanding to be fed in spite of so many citizens struggling to get by.

This situation is dumb. Hey Obama, get a clue. How about a "swords to plowshares"^TM program. Just divert whatever defense cuts to infrastructure spending? The raw materials for useless defense crap could be used for rail, roads, windmills, etc. Example, aluminum for the windmills. This way the MIC threat get neutralized and no net job losses to boot. My guess is that more jobs will be created in the short term and more jobs would remain since infrastructure is an expenditure which does have an ROI. Defense spending does not do this.

More about child hunger in America.

FROM LUV NEWS:

Michael McAuliff tells us this morning that the Senate voted 66-33 to reject a bill to restore $4.5 billion in food stamps. Most of the hungry receiving food stamps are children or the elderly, so the Senate, realizing they get no campaign funding from the poor, have decided to continue on the path of trillions of dollars for banksters, trillions for the Nuclear Mafia and their associated wars, but "let them eat cake" for the poor.

Partisan Democrats would have a difficult time explaining how they control the Senate but couldn't get 51 votes for this, if not for the duplicitous mass media, which has many thinking they are different, somehow, from Republicans.

Of course, our corrupt government, on behalf of those who finance the elections, will not let us know what's in our food (we wouldn't buy it or eat it if we knew, after all). Senator Bernie Sanders has a bill to ask that food be labeled to tell us. Click on the picture at this link (the picture doesn't work for us, but it will take you to a video of Bernie speaking eloquently in the Senate about this, saying "This is not radical," to try to convince his colleagues to go against their masters whostuff their pockets with bribes to keep citizens in the dark.

Don't we deserve the truth?

As the Obama campaign attempts to convince its faithful followers that the evil Republicans are running neck and neck because of their evil superpacs, yesterday's Bloomberg poll shows Obama with a comfortable 13 point lead among likely voters, and one of his own superpacs raised $4 million for him just last month.

It's not *just* the Republicans, it's the whole dirty rotten political system. And until we as the citizens understand this, the system will stay broken and inequality will increase.

Is anyone else here concerned about prominent Democrats like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel supporting all but legalizing marijuana within the past 10 days or so?

Is it a good idea to just write off older voters like this? They vote like rabbits you know!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Is anyone else here concerned about prominent Democrats like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel supporting all but legalizing marijuana within the past 10 days or so?

Is it a good idea to just write off older voters like this? They vote like rabbits you know!

Who'll be offended, really:

• Top of the list: the religous right. They don't vote for the Dems now, and they're much more interested in sex than drugs.
• Moral Crusaders^TM: These folks also tend to be Republicans, and they do that drugs seriously. Luckily, they are relatively few in number.
• GIs and older Silents: This is a declining demographic, and one not totally conservative in any case. Many have children and grandchildren ... even great-gtrandchildren, who have used the stuff, and say so openly.

So we have a few zealots who aren't friends on any terms, and the elderly, who are not monolythic. On the other side, we have an emerging voter-class that sees this as a personal civil rights issue. I'll go with them.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Who'll be offended, really:

• Top of the list: the religous right. They don't vote for the Dems now, and they're much more interested in sex than drugs.
• Moral Crusaders^TM: These folks also tend to be Republicans, and they do that drugs seriously. Luckily, they are relatively few in number.
• GIs and older Silents: This is a declining demographic, and one not totally conservative in any case. Many have children and grandchildren ... even great-gtrandchildren, who have used the stuff, and say so openly.

So we have a few zealots who aren't friends on any terms, and the elderly, who are not monolythic. On the other side, we have an emerging voter-class that sees this as a personal civil rights issue. I'll go with them.

In addtion, it makes more sense to deal with drugs the same way as we now deal with alcohol. I think this would work better, reduce prison population , and allow wasted drug war efforts to be put to better use. It is at least worth trying in a few states.

Originally Posted by radind

In addtion, it makes more sense to deal with drugs the same way as we now deal with alcohol. I think this would work better, reduce prison population , and allow wasted drug war efforts to be put to better use. It is at least worth trying in a few states.

Not to mention that it would also deprive the private owned prison industrial complex of all that profit.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Who'll be offended, really:

• Top of the list: the religous right. They don't vote for the Dems now, and they're much more interested in sex than drugs.
• Moral Crusaders^TM: These folks also tend to be Republicans, and they do that drugs seriously. Luckily, they are relatively few in number.
• GIs and older Silents: This is a declining demographic, and one not totally conservative in any case. Many have children and grandchildren ... even great-gtrandchildren, who have used the stuff, and say so openly.

So we have a few zealots who aren't friends on any terms, and the elderly, who are not monolythic. On the other side, we have an emerging voter-class that sees this as a personal civil rights issue. I'll go with them.

Don't forget the drug cartels. They're probably pouring a lot of money into the organizations and people above, hoping to keep the weed illegal. Decriminalize it, and there goes their price floor.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Not to mention that it would also deprive the private owned prison industrial complex of all that profit.

Which is why it's not going to happen. "Take away our prison? That has brought JOBS to our town?"

And besides, "What are you, soft on crime? Do you want to flood the streets with rapists and murderers?"

"And besides, what else can we use to control the lower classes that works so efficiently?"

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Which is why it's not going to happen. "Take away our prison? That has brought JOBS to our town?"

And besides, "What are you, soft on crime? Do you want to flood the streets with rapists and murderers?"

"And besides, what else can we use to control the lower classes that works so efficiently?"

LOL! So true!

Last evening I was sitting outside with some neighbors and we were discussing drugs in our city. I said that I wish we would at least legalize weed. One person, who was drinking a beer (drug) and smoking a cigarette (drug) piped up and said, "If they legalize drugs, I'm moving to another country. "

Ironic, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Deb C

LOL! So true!

Last evening I was sitting outside with some neighbors and we were discussing drugs in our city. I said that I wish we would at least legalize weed. One person, who was drinking a beer (drug) and smoking a cigarette (drug) piped up and said, "If they legalize drugs, I'm moving to another country. "

Ironic, isn't it?

LOL, I'm reminded of my mom telling me that I'm on the Internet too much, then she goes and talks on the phone for over an hour!

Of the Rich, For the Rich, By the Rich

"The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its disastrous 2010 ruling that lifted limits on corporate spending to influence elections. Justices reversed the Montana Supreme Court and struck down a state law. "The U.S. Supreme Court's absurd 5-4 ruling two years ago in Citizens United was a major blow to American democratic traditions. Sadly, despite all of the evidence that Americans see every day, the court continues to believe that its decision makes sense," Sanders said."

"In his famous speech at Gettysburg during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln talked about America as a country ‘of the people, by the people and for the people.' Today, as a result of the Supreme Court's refusal to reconsider its decision in Citizens United, we are rapidly moving toward a nation of the super-rich, by the super-rich and for the super-rich. That is not what America is supposed to be about. This Supreme Court decision must be overturned."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/

But Obama calling the outcome of the election in Egypt a "milestone"?

C'mon, man!

It is both a travesty, and a tragedy; indeed it is literally this saeculum's counterpart to Hitler becoming the German chancellor in January of 1933.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But Obama calling the outcome of the election in Egypt a "milestone"?

C'mon, man!

It is both a travesty, and a tragedy; indeed it is literally this saeculum's counterpart to Hitler becoming the German chancellor in January of 1933.

No, it won't be that at all. You seem to have a thing about Israel.

It's only one day, but so far the polls are looking up for Obama in the wake of the Health Care decision. Even Rasmussen has him up by one point over Romney today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Originally Posted by Odin

La Raza-style racists? Nice strawman.

-It is unclear from your post whether you think the strawman is La Raza supports this illegals (they do), or that La Raza (The Race) is racist. Please. The Race. I won't even go into MEChA.

I thought this should be posted here. A former Republican speaks out.

http://truth-out.org/index.php?optio...-left-the-cult

Jonathan Krohn, CPAC's boy wonder, swings left.

Jonathan Krohn took the political world by storm at 2009’s Conservative Political Action Conference when, at just 13 years old, he delivered an impromptu rallying cry for conservatism that became a viral hit and had some pegging him as a future star of the Republican Party.

Now 17, Krohn — who went on to write a book, “Defining Conservatism,” that was blurbed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Bill Bennett — still watches that speech from time to time, but it mostly makes him cringe because, well, he’s not a conservative anymore.

“I think it was naive,” Krohn now says of the speech. “It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time.… I live in Georgia. We’re inundated with conservative talk in Georgia.… The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough.”

Krohn won’t go so far as to say he’s liberal, in part because his move away from conservatism was a move away from ideological boxes in general.

“I want to be Jonathan Krohn,” he said, “and I’m tired of being an ideology, and it’s not fun and it gets boring and it’s not who we are as individuals.”

But a quick rundown of his current political stances suggests a serious pendulum swing away from the right.

Gay marriage? In favor. Obamacare? “It’s a good idea.” Who would he vote for (if he could) in November? “Probably Barack Obama.” His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. And, perhaps telling of all, Krohn is enrolling this fall at a college not exactly known for its conservatism: New York University.

(Also on POLITICO: CNN: Voters split evenly on health care)

“One of the first things that changed was that I stopped being a social conservative,” said Krohn. “It just didn’t seem right to me anymore. From there, it branched into other issues, everything from health care to economic issues.… I think I’ve changed a lot, and it’s not because I’ve become a liberal from being a conservative — it’s just that I thought about it more. The issues are so complex, you can’t just go with some ideological mantra for each substantive issue.”

Krohn is bucking the received wisdom that people become more conservative as they get older, a shift he attributes partly to philosophy.

“I started reflecting on a lot of what I wrote, just thinking about what I had said and what I had done and started reading a lot of other stuff, and not just political stuff,” Krohn said. “I started getting into philosophy — Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant and lots of other German philosophers. And then into present philosophers — Saul Kripke, David Chalmers. It was really reading philosophy that didn’t have anything to do with politics that gave me a breather and made me realize that a lot of what I said was ideological blather that really wasn’t meaningful. It wasn’t me thinking. It was just me saying things I had heard so long from people I thought were interesting and just came to believe for some reason, without really understanding it. I understood it enough to talk about it but not really enough to have a conversation about it.”

“I think I’ve just matured overall,” he added.

The problem, for Krohn, is that he’s still that 13-year-old kid in the eyes of many. And that, he says, makes him “absolutely annoyed.”

“It really has gotten cumbersome having to go through the process of telling people what I’ve done over the past few years,” said Krohn. “I’ve tried to tell people, but it’s not as interesting, apparently. People don’t want to listen to me tell them I’ve changed.”

Those old memories sometimes come back to haunt Krohn, as when HBO’s Bill Maher recently included Krohn in a biting bit about young conservatives.

“I have no problem with what Bill Maher said,” said Krohn. “He’s funny. But all these people took it seriously instead of a joke.… It hurt me in the sense that I was compared to some kid who said that Obama is turning kids gay. And that kind of stuff is what happens. I have to explain to people over and over and over again that I’m not a conservative and I have my own ideas and I’m not just agreeing to everything that every conservative said. It’s very hard to break a stereotype like that of yourself.”

“I’ve been trying to tell people,” he added, “but it’s a lot harder to get stuff out there when your mind changes on things because a lot of people who supported you when you’re on one side of the issue aren’t really going to help you get your changing ideas out there when people still think I’m that conservative kid. … People don’t realize I was 14 when I wrote that book. I’m 17 now. In terms of my life, three years is a long time in a 17-year-old’s life.”

Krohn’s move away from conservatism posed two risks: First, the wrath of his conservative parents. (That was quickly and pleasantly overcome: “Neither of them were overjoyed, but it didn’t really make a difference in their respect and love for me.”) Second, the discarding of a surefire path to success within the conservative movement.

Krohn said that family and friends noted “all of the opportunities” available to him in the world of politics, but giving that up “didn’t faze me because I really didn’t want to do anything that would compromise my beliefs as an individual.”

As for what’s next, Krohn says he can’t help but remain a bit of a political geek, but he’ll never write a political nonfiction book again. Instead, he’s hoping to spend his time at NYU studying philosophy and filmmaking, while occasionally writing political satire.

And that’s what Krohn seems most eager to focus on: What’s next. Not what’s in the past.

“Come on, I was thirteen,” he said. “I was thirteen.”

And this is why those who claim that younger Millies are going to be conservatives are wrong.

Originally Posted by Odin

Jonathan Krohn, CPAC's boy wonder, swings left.

And this is why those who claim that younger Millies are going to be conservatives are wrong.

You posted this in the "Millenials swing from Obama" thread?