Sister Joan Chittister famously said, "We are each called to go through life reclaiming the planet an inch at a time until the Garden of Eden grows green again." Reflecting on that journey -- a blog at a time -- is the focus of this site.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
I only have two words to say ...
... about the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party:
BOMB IRAN
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi Susan+,
5 times Hillary Clinton has suggested that John McCain would be a better candidate if he runs against Barak Obama. The latest incident yesterday & she was taken to task on MSNBC:
"On Countdown last night, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow expressed exasperation over a statement made by Hillary Clinton in Fort Worth, Texas that praised Republican John McCain over her Democratic rival Barack Obama.
Said Clinton: "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
Asked Olbermann: "Is it unfair to say that she just ranked Obama third on this topic behind the Republican that she and the Democrats are supposed to be blood-oath sworn to defeat?
Said Maddow: "That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's Vice Presidential choice. That's not what you say when you are trying to become the Democratic nominee for president."
What do you think about Hillary's belief in McCain's competence.
Although a foreigner, I despair at this system in which you have 2 candidates from the one party vilifying each other and providing ammunition for the real opposition. I am well aware it is not always sweetness and light in the party leadership battles we have but at least only small whiffs escape to the public. My greatest fear is that this long drawn out battle will result in McCain being the next President and again I will be in despair for the world.
It appears that Hillary is so hell bent on winning the nomination at all costs that she is willing to take down the one best chance to rid the country of the Iraq War. Her demeaning comments about Barack Obama are designed to wound her opposition so totally that it will fracture the party at convention and drive the excited young voters he has attracted back into apathy. She and her husband are ruthless politicians with no ambition but their own. I know that's a shock, a politican with ruthless ambition, but it does seem as if she is committed to making sure that she so completely damages Barack Obama that no one but her will have a chance to win. This kind of racist attack on a young bright man is something I would expect from another party. Can't imagine that black voters, who have been taken for granted for more than 100 years will look kindly on a hijacking of this election. The fact the Hillary, Barack and all the Democrats agreed not to seat Michigan and Florida delegates and now she wants to reverse herself for raw political gain (again, shock) demonstrates a lack of character. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. That's who I want answering the phone at 3 a.m. at the White House.
brian r, I'm curious as to what country you are from?
Actually, this is rather unusual. Normally the presumptive nominee is decided well before we get this far into the primaries. It's worth noting as well that the Republicans managed to select a candidate from among a number of candidates who have strongly held views without nearly this level of conflict. I suggest that what we are seeing now is a product not of the process but of the particular people involved in it.
As far as staying in Iraq for 100 years, note that WW II ended in 1945 and we still have troops in Germany and Japan 63 years later. It won't be particularly surprising if we maintain a base or two in Iraq for a long time.
Oh, and I think Sen. Clinton is right on the money on this one.
The difference between Iraq and WW II is that Japan and Germany actually attacked the United States and our allies.
Unitary Executive Bush/Cheney declared war on a noun, at a cost of trillions of dollars, which has in no way made us safer. All of the worldwide good will the U.S. received on 9/12/2001 has been squandered and Bush/Cheney have exponentially increased the population of terrorists committed to revenge. Meanwhile, our National Guard is in Iraq, unavailable to guard our nation, no matter who’s answering the phone.
Mission Accomplished and permanent war simultaneously, and no new taxes!
The difference between Iraq and WW II is that Japan and Germany actually attacked the United States and our allies.
Which has absolutely no bearing on how long it will be necessary or desirable to have American forces in Iraq.
Unitary Executive Bush/Cheney
What the heck does that mean?
declared war
Congress participated via vote in the deployment of the troops and continues to vote to fund them.
on a noun
On a group of people, terrorists, who were intent on killing large numbers of innocent people and placing as many people as possible under either 6 feet of dirt or a 7th Century theocracy.
at a cost of trillions of dollars,
Inflation forces an update of "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."
which has in no way made us safer.
I haven't seen any more buildings full of people crashing to the ground these days, have you?
All of the worldwide good will the U.S. received on 9/12/2001 has been squandered
Pity is cheap. Everyone loves a victim, but they're a lot more ambivalent about someone who refuses to be a victim and instead stands up for themselves and does something about it.
Bush/Cheney have exponentially increased the population of terrorists committed to revenge.
On what basis have you been able to enumerate the number of terrorists worldwide both now and for previous years? It's a common claim, but it doesn't seem to have any actual facts behind it.
Meanwhile, our National Guard is in Iraq, unavailable to guard our nation, no matter who’s answering the phone.
Our National Guard is both at home and in Iraq (and Afghanistan, if memory serves me correctly), and is doing a fine job in both locations guarding the U.S. Keeping the terrorists busy in Iraq has kept them from doing much of anything here in the U.S., and the National Guard has been able to meet all of it's obligations here in the U.S. as well.
It has also enabled the world to compare the activities of terrorists and the activities of American forces side by side for themselves, instead of through the propaganda of Islamic fascists. The locals started to side with the terrorists in the beginning, believing their lies about holy war and about America bringing evil. But the Iraqis have learned the truth and now are supporting the Coalition forces in getting rid of foreign terrorists.
This kind of racist attack on a young bright man is something I would expect from another party.
Racist attack? I can think of a lot of ways to describe the way that Sen. Clinton has conducted her campaign, but I don't see how "racist" fits. What about her campaign has been racist?
I believe the tone of her attacks on Barack Obama are patrician and smack of a plantation mentality. Blacks are wonderful as long as "they know their place." This was Hillary's election, dontcha know? Along comes this uppity black man to take it all away and the attacks began. It may not be overtly racist, but if any Republican were doing this can you imagine what the charges would be? Do Willie Horton ring a bell? There is a smack of racism and condescension in Hillary's attacks on Obama. No she doesn't call him a "boy", just inexperienced. Heck he has nearly as much real experience as her, unless you count being the wife of somebody as an accomplishment. On second thought, being the wife of a serial philanderer like her husband probably does qualify her as something, but it doesn't seem positive to me.
11 comments:
Hi Susan+,
5 times Hillary Clinton has suggested that John McCain would be a better candidate if he runs against Barak Obama. The latest incident yesterday & she was taken to task on MSNBC:
"On Countdown last night, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow expressed exasperation over a statement made by Hillary Clinton in Fort Worth, Texas that praised Republican John McCain over her Democratic rival Barack Obama.
Said Clinton: "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
Asked Olbermann: "Is it unfair to say that she just ranked Obama third on this topic behind the Republican that she and the Democrats are supposed to be blood-oath sworn to defeat?
Said Maddow: "That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's Vice Presidential choice. That's not what you say when you are trying to become the Democratic nominee for president."
What do you think about Hillary's belief in McCain's competence.
I think she's wrong.
Although a foreigner, I despair at this system in which you have 2 candidates from the one party vilifying each other and providing ammunition for the real opposition. I am well aware it is not always sweetness and light in the party leadership battles we have but at least only small whiffs escape to the public. My greatest fear is that this long drawn out battle will result in McCain being the next President and again I will be in despair for the world.
Dear Rev. Russell:
It appears that Hillary is so hell bent on winning the nomination at all costs that she is willing to take down the one best chance to rid the country of the Iraq War.
Her demeaning comments about Barack Obama are designed to wound her opposition so totally that it will fracture the party at convention and drive the excited young voters he has attracted back into apathy.
She and her husband are ruthless politicians with no ambition but their own. I know that's a shock, a politican with ruthless ambition, but it does seem as if she is committed to making sure that she so completely damages Barack Obama that no one but her will have a chance to win.
This kind of racist attack on a young bright man is something I would expect from another party.
Can't imagine that black voters, who have been taken for granted for more than 100 years will look kindly on a hijacking of this election.
The fact the Hillary, Barack and all the Democrats agreed not to seat Michigan and Florida delegates and now she wants to reverse herself for raw political gain (again, shock) demonstrates a lack of character.
Let your yes be yes and your no be no. That's who I want answering the phone at 3 a.m. at the White House.
A sinner saved by God's Grace
Jim from Michigan
As opposed to bombing Pakistan, eh?
brian r, I'm curious as to what country you are from?
Actually, this is rather unusual. Normally the presumptive nominee is decided well before we get this far into the primaries. It's worth noting as well that the Republicans managed to select a candidate from among a number of candidates who have strongly held views without nearly this level of conflict. I suggest that what we are seeing now is a product not of the process but of the particular people involved in it.
Very clever video, I must say.
As far as staying in Iraq for 100 years, note that WW II ended in 1945 and we still have troops in Germany and Japan 63 years later. It won't be particularly surprising if we maintain a base or two in Iraq for a long time.
Oh, and I think Sen. Clinton is right on the money on this one.
The difference between Iraq and WW II is that Japan and Germany actually attacked the United States and our allies.
Unitary Executive Bush/Cheney declared war on a noun, at a cost of trillions of dollars, which has in no way made us safer. All of the worldwide good will the U.S. received on 9/12/2001 has been squandered and Bush/Cheney have exponentially increased the population of terrorists committed to revenge. Meanwhile, our National Guard is in Iraq, unavailable to guard our nation, no matter who’s answering the phone.
Mission Accomplished and permanent war simultaneously, and no new taxes!
The difference between Iraq and WW II is that Japan and Germany actually attacked the United States and our allies.
Which has absolutely no bearing on how long it will be necessary or desirable to have American forces in Iraq.
Unitary Executive Bush/Cheney
What the heck does that mean?
declared war
Congress participated via vote in the deployment of the troops and continues to vote to fund them.
on a noun
On a group of people, terrorists, who were intent on killing large numbers of innocent people and placing as many people as possible under either 6 feet of dirt or a 7th Century theocracy.
at a cost of trillions of dollars,
Inflation forces an update of "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."
which has in no way made us safer.
I haven't seen any more buildings full of people crashing to the ground these days, have you?
All of the worldwide good will the U.S. received on 9/12/2001 has been squandered
Pity is cheap. Everyone loves a victim, but they're a lot more ambivalent about someone who refuses to be a victim and instead stands up for themselves and does something about it.
Bush/Cheney have exponentially increased the population of terrorists committed to revenge.
On what basis have you been able to enumerate the number of terrorists worldwide both now and for previous years? It's a common claim, but it doesn't seem to have any actual facts behind it.
Meanwhile, our National Guard is in Iraq, unavailable to guard our nation, no matter who’s answering the phone.
Our National Guard is both at home and in Iraq (and Afghanistan, if memory serves me correctly), and is doing a fine job in both locations guarding the U.S. Keeping the terrorists busy in Iraq has kept them from doing much of anything here in the U.S., and the National Guard has been able to meet all of it's obligations here in the U.S. as well.
It has also enabled the world to compare the activities of terrorists and the activities of American forces side by side for themselves, instead of through the propaganda of Islamic fascists. The locals started to side with the terrorists in the beginning, believing their lies about holy war and about America bringing evil. But the Iraqis have learned the truth and now are supporting the Coalition forces in getting rid of foreign terrorists.
Jim of I-Town said:
This kind of racist attack on a young bright man is something I would expect from another party.
Racist attack? I can think of a lot of ways to describe the way that Sen. Clinton has conducted her campaign, but I don't see how "racist" fits. What about her campaign has been racist?
Ronf:
I believe the tone of her attacks on Barack Obama are patrician and smack of a plantation mentality.
Blacks are wonderful as long as "they know their place."
This was Hillary's election, dontcha know? Along comes this uppity black man to take it all away and the attacks began.
It may not be overtly racist, but if any Republican were doing this can you imagine what the charges would be?
Do Willie Horton ring a bell? There is a smack of racism and condescension in Hillary's attacks on Obama.
No she doesn't call him a "boy", just inexperienced. Heck he has nearly as much real experience as her, unless you count being the wife of somebody as an accomplishment.
On second thought, being the wife of a serial philanderer like her husband probably does qualify her as something, but it doesn't seem positive to me.
A sinner saved by God's Grace
Jim from Michigan
ronf, just curious, do you have a day job?
Post a Comment