http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

so, today obama voted in favor of confirming rice as secretary of state, despite her lies/misstatements about WMD put a disproportionately black infantry in harm's way for no good reason, being an obvious lapdog/yeswoman for bush, and well, not having any experience in foreign policy outside around two decades spent studying what is now a non-existent entity (communist russia).

he also voted against supporting boxer's move to oppose certifying the 2004 electoral vote count, despite boatloads of evidence that the election was awash with suspicious or illegal vote suppression activities undertaken by republican operatives.

ah yes, the progressive we dreamed of. go obama go. sigh.
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

but a lot better than than many others in gov't.
he needs to be more of a warrior

slimy cowardice
nothing noble about this bullshit of seeling oout becaiuse you feel guilty
and i support him fully and totallt other tan this racist, pseudo-spiritual bullshit:

"we've all got to pull together to show unanimity"
It's just an excuse to dump shame and guilt all over everyone.

The martyr's revolution theme music:
"The Things We Do for Love" (the 70's song).

It's terrible, and it's pathetic. Is he an okayplayer? I want to recommend somebody IM him.

Hopefully Boondock man will say something that I'll like. He's good for that.


PEACE,
Christopher
Official Whiteboy"?, WORD.
Google "Chris Defendorf "and/or
chrisdefendorf
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/
10450673

Nat Turner wasn't exactly a field negro either.

>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002
>
>so, today obama voted in favor of confirming rice as
>secretary of state, despite her lies/misstatements about WMD
>put a disproportionately black infantry in harm's way for no
>good reason, being an obvious lapdog/yeswoman for bush, and
>well, not having any experience in foreign policy outside
>around two decades spent studying what is now a non-existent
>entity (communist russia).
>

While I disagree with Obama's vote, I certainly do not believe that his vote for Rice's confirmation is indicative of his lack of progressive ideals. Consider that the majory of Senate Democrats voted for Rice's confirmation (32-13). The Democratic Party is certainly a progressive political machine.

>he also voted against supporting boxer's move to oppose
>certifying the 2004 electoral vote count, despite boatloads
>of evidence that the election was awash with suspicious or
>illegal vote suppression activities undertaken by republican
>operatives.
>

I don't understand why people keep trying to push this. Where I believe that the Democratic Party was correct in its challenge in Florida in 2000, Ohio is not Florida. Consider that there are fifty states with essentially fifty different election guidelines and rules; voting irregularities are bound to happen. I think the margin of victory, particularly in those states that swung the election like Ohio, was high enough to remove doubt about who really won the election. I mean, President Bush won reelection by 3 million votes nationally. I don't believe it gives him any particular mandate as he proclaims, but I certainly think it should nip any allegations of illegitimacy in the bud.

>ah yes, the progressive we dreamed of. go obama go. sigh.
>____

Progressive != blind opposition to the Republican Party

>
>http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's
>smarter to be anti-war
>
>www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to
>represent my girl. word! (c) extra p
>
>http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

>>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002
>>
>>so, today obama voted in favor of confirming rice as
>>secretary of state, despite her lies/misstatements about WMD
>>put a disproportionately black infantry in harm's way for no
>>good reason, being an obvious lapdog/yeswoman for bush, and
>>well, not having any experience in foreign policy outside
>>around two decades spent studying what is now a non-existent
>>entity (communist russia).
>>
>
>While I disagree with Obama's vote, I certainly do not
>believe that his vote for Rice's confirmation is indicative
>of his lack of progressive ideals. Consider that the majory
>of Senate Democrats voted for Rice's confirmation (32-13).
>The Democratic Party is certainly a progressive political
>machine.

the fact that you say that shows me you have no idea what a 'progressive' is. the democratic party, particularly in the senate, is largely moderate.

and no, being progressive does not mean being "blindly opposed" to Bush, it means having clear and rational differences of opinion regarding many issues that the bush administration either champions or fails to champion. issues such as the Bush admin's refusal to have the US submit to the authority of the international criminal court or agree to the kyoto protocol, their support of the concept of pre-emptive war, etc. it's not like a progressive would oppose withdrawal from Iraq just because Bush orders it...LOL. This is far from "blind opposition".
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

>the fact that you say that shows me you have no idea what a
>'progressive' is. the democratic party, particularly in the
>senate, is largely moderate.

Are you telling me that Social Security, affirmative action, poverty assistance, unversal healthcare, the protection of labor unions, and in some states, free college tuition, aren't progressive intiatives?

moderate, not progressive.
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

will do nothing that challenges his Master....Dubya...or his Aunt Tome...Rice......LOL @ those negroes who still think that the liberation of Afrakan Folk will come from the Democratic party, yet alone...Obama....

this is about voting to approve someone with extraordinarily limited foreign policy experience to be secretary of state.

and there is no evidence that obama will rubber stamp every bush initiative, as you imply with the "massa" comment.
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

But I haven't heard anybody say anything that makes me think she couldn't do the job. Her job is to promote America's policies to the world and considering the influence she already has on the president and the neo-cons, she's more than capable of taking her influence on a world tour.

In terms of not certifying the results, the general public doesn't care. They're all still politicians. If there's no popular controversy, they're not gonna give a fuck.


I don't think we know anything really about Obama yet. I think everyone projected ALOT of their hopes on him after his star-making speech at the convention. Some of ya'll seem to think he was gonna be some ultra liberal... I think he's gonna be centrist. We'll see what happens.

I see someone put up a quote from Sen. Boxer about Rice being "qualified". Rice may have more of an understanding of foreign policy than a layperson, but she hardly has the foreign policy experience one would expect of a credible nominee for Secretary of State (again, outside of her two decades of experience studying a regime that no longer exists, communist russia).

I think Boxer was being a bit of an apogolist there, saying that for fear of being branded as being opposed to Rice on some personal level (or worse yet, on a racial level). If pressed, I doubt Boxer could list anything from Rice's resume that makes her anywhere near the best candidate for Secretary of State.
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

...it's a hell of a lot easier to admire a politician before they actually end up in office.

let the selling out begin....

Which can be found


"Even the people who railed against her (*cough*Barbara Boxer*cough*) fell over themselves to say the woman was qualified (Boxer last week: "I'm sure we'll work wonderfully together", not exactly a stinging rebuke) while they lambasted her after the fact for some shit they shoulda stopped in the first place. And it's not like she WASN'T going to get confirmed. What, exactly, would be the point of his voting against her?

And like I asked a friend, are we now gonna hawk every single vote Barack Obama makes in the Senate?"


"Least of all Barack Obama. He ran what seems to have been a moderately brilliant campaign for Senator. So he's a brilliant Black politician who seems to play for the right team. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see where all the hate comes from, as if he would somehow be above reproach. GTFOOHWTBS, especially considering singling him out for condemnation (and not the 30 other Dem Senators who did the same thing) over a procedural vote that wouldn't even affect an outcome."


"(1) He IS a brilliant Black politician, who came out of the southside of Chicago, where he did good things as a community organizer and state senator. He came from behind to win a crowded primary, then crafted a message that allowed him to trounce his rival to win his Senate seat. Don't take that away from the brother cuz you don't like 100% of his politics.

(2) I don't know his rationale for the US attacking Iran. I'm generally anti-war, but I'm also clear that a US Senator is there partially to promote American imperial prerogatives, and that Iran has been an American enemy of one kind or another for a quarter-century, and that the situation isn't 100% equivalent to Iraq."



">funny how you left out the part that when he ran for a US
>house seat, he lost in the primaries b/c his own community
>thought he wasn't Black enough. and don't forget the fact
>that his rival in the senate race had to drop out b/c of
>some sex scandal and so that idiot keyes, who anyone
>could've beat, was his competition in the election.
I left that out because Bobby Rush HIMSELF supported Barack Obama for Senator. What are you saying? Bobby race-baited dude cuz he is a Harvard-educated African mulatto, which made it easy to keep his seat. Sure the community responded to some basic race-baiting -- is THAT what you're holding up as an ideal?

As to his winning - he was trouncing Jack Ryan to the same degree he ended up trouncing Keyes before any scandal ever broke, if you wanna look at the whole picture.

>"but I'm also clear that a US Senator is there partially to
>promote American imperial prerogatives"
>
>whoa, that's news to me. i guess you'll have to point out to
>me where promoting "american imperial prerogatives" is
>listed as a senator's job in the constitution.
That's NOT news to you. If you think Senators are there to change the system, then you're fooling yourself, buddy.

>the democrats are setting themselves up for another let down
>if they think this guy is their hope. i don't see many
>differences between him and kerry.
He's young and up-and-coming, and won an unexpectedly strong victory with a message that seemed to resonate across party lines. So yea, he's a young star. Only time will tell where he goes from here. And yes, the Democrats are setting themselves up for failure if they think ANY one person can save their party. It's deeper than that."

:)

then he voted to fund the war, before he voted against it.

<-- Slicka than ya average.

"It's a war in the streets tonight
And nobody's really feelin alright
I got a blunt for my chronic
A juice for my tonic
I know now
That I'm feelin right if it goes down"
-- Nas, "War"

"perky breasts go with anything....its like the black shoe."
-- my nigga my bruh, OKP thashadow

If he was halfway competent, he woulda won the election.

----------
Who Dey??? Dolphins 29, Patriots 28

Miami Dolphins 4-12.......when is the draft???

The Fellowship of the Fins:
absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, LML, Lord_Vingtune, MIAthinker, Robert, Roofdogg10, Sandbox194, wonderl33t, xenophobia

He had nothing to gain by voting against her. Why rock the boat when you're 99th in seniority. If he's starts trouble now you know he's going to get the Carol Mosley Braun treatment. He got watch his step until after 06 if the dems can regain the Senate. All the people that voted against her war anti-war people who were in the Senate from the beginning and are not up for re-election or don't face significant challenges if they are up.

Need proof on iran thing.

Democrats Support Bush’s Iran Policy
By Joshua Frank

By now you have probably heard about the Bush Administration’s secret plan to attack Iran and how US Special Forces units have been operating in the country for some time. Seymour Hersh, the maverick journalist for the New Yorker, broke the story earlier this week.

“The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work,” writes Hersh. “The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership.”

It is a scathing indictment. The Bush Administration, which has avoided going through Congress to initiate its covert operations, is conducting this potential invasion much differently than the Iraq incursion. The reasons may be political in nature. The US public, or at least those who opposed the Iraq war, made it somewhat difficult for Bush to instigate war against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Gathering in the streets, and later on Capitol Hill, they forced a public discussion, carefully scrutinizing Bush’s motives. Now that many of Bush’s claims about Iraq’s WMD program and ties to Al Qaeda have been disproven (though Bush might beg to differ), Bush and company may be struggling to garner sufficient support to justify waging another war with an already strained military.

But the Bush administration may not have to worry about the opposition for round two. While Hersh surmises that opposition to Bush’s Iran invasion could be carried out with Israeli special operatives, political opposition may never reach the doorsteps of Congress. After all, the Democrats have long agreed that Iran must be dealt with militarily.

Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures , including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?”

He added, “aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”

Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target.”

Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The Forward quotes Dean as saying, “The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they’re funding terrorism.”

In fact, while campaigning for president, Dean argued that President Bush had been far too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS’ Face The Nation, Dean even went so far as to say that “ is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians.”

Foreign Policy expert Stephen Zunes wrote of the Democrats’ platform in Foreign Policy in Focus on August 12, 2004:

One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is Iran. The platform implies an American right to such military intervention by stating that “a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.” No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals of Iran’s neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently because it would require America’s regional allies to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and which countries cannot.
So are we really supposed to believe the Democrats will ever offer up any significant opposition to Bush’s military dabbling in Iran?

Not unless by “opposition to” you mean “support for.”

Somethings needs to be done about Iran and North Korea, but both parties are going at it the wrong way.

Either black folks or liberals will think he's a sellout Uncle Tom ass nigga or the Republicans in Congress will never want to work with him on anything becasue he's a shit starter.

Doesn't matter because Condi Rice gets confirmed anyway whether Barack votes for or against.

You can't judge what Obama is or isn't from one vote. I would tend to think that he's taking a L on this one so that he can be progressive in the future. It's a non-issue to me.

And had John Kerry made his case better to the dumb masses of the American heartland and if he'd attacked Bush about that Swift Boat bullshit, then maybe he would be president right now appointing his Secretary of State.

Or work with any Dems on any major level?

Two, he could have not voted at all rather than voting in the affirmative.

Three, I expect politicians to vote according to policy and their beliefs. I don't expect to see a religious conservative voting in favor of gay marriage and I don't expect to see a progressive voting in favor of an unqualified imperialist who will tell any lie necessary to further her administration's objectives.
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

who esle was up for sec.of defense?
who do you think should have been voted in & why?

in an ideal world, it would be someone with extensive foreign policy experience in the area of mideast relations specifically, with some added experience dealing with other regions. but the bushies want an ideologue/yes-person, not the person with the most foreign policy experience. i think rice was ill-qualified AND i disagree with most of her notions regarding foreign policy. there's no way I would vote for her to be secretary of state.
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work

The fact of the matter is that Obama's vote really didn't matter. Rice would still have gotten the 'thumbs up' anyway, that's just the way this ineffective system works. That's not to cosign his vote or say that he couldn't have abstained or voted against her to make a statement. All the talk about bi-partisan initiatives and Democrats and Republicans working together is pretty much a front anyway.

With that said, being a politician is hard. Especially if you want to try to get some real change done within this system. People are constantly coming at you with their agendas and lobbyist platforms, etc., and you often end up doing things you don't want to do to maybe get something done in the future. I know I couldn't do it, I've got to stand behind my beliefs and values no matter what, but cats like Obama have to make concessions to get possible wins in the long run. Y'all know the whole set-up is corrupt, and if you're going to work within its framework, you gotta give in.

On the whole side-topic of the democrats being so-called 'progressive'...I don't agree. The democrats are just the other arm of the machine thats built to hold us ALL down. It's basically divide and conquer because the folk in control know they can keep us arguing and squabbling with each other while they push whatever laws and policies they want through. Look at the Dems track record, even under Clinton. We've lost healthcare, are losing social security, lost money for education nationwide, while the prison system continues to boom and the corporations are making a killing. ALL these politicians are getting fat off of our hardwork and labor, while we fight each other over things that don't even matter in the long run. I don't mean to rant, but dam, y'all gotta open your minds and read between the lines. Analyze the mess you let the media feed you before you digest it. The things the U.S. is doing worldwide would make your headspin. Be revolutionary...

Give Obama some time to show & prove.

hahahahahaha...

>Either black folks or liberals will think he's a sellout
>Uncle Tom ass nigga or the Republicans in Congress will
>never want to work with him on anything becasue he's a shit
>starter.

if he really is for change (real change, not changing the leadership from Republicans to Democrats) he wouldnt have voted the way he did, if he really cared, he would have voted different...and what do you mean by "shit starter"? doing whats right is being a "shit starter"?

>Doesn't matter because Condi Rice gets confirmed anyway
>whether Barack votes for or against.

yes it does, it matters A LOT..i guess we should have all voted for Bush, he was gonna win anyway, why should we be against the war, its still gonna happen...

>You can't judge what Obama is or isn't from one vote. I
>would tend to think that he's taking a L on this one so that
>he can be progressive in the future. It's a non-issue to
>me.

if he isnt "progressive" now, he wont be "progressive" later, simple as that, hes a politician, change wont come from a politician, hes just looking out for himself, hes doing whats best for him, i cant respect that.

you know who you are.

people were talking a lot of shit, like was the messiah coming to free the democrats from misery. just face it, he's no different than any of the other spineless people so popular in the democratic party.

hes got everyone brainwashed.

Let's lynch him. (Sarcasm)