Don't ask why Chelsea hasn't joined up, ask why YOU or your kids have not!

[Didereaux]

[MadBadger]

1. I say, dont ask Chelsea, and dont ask Mitt's children or anybody else's kids.

The parents make the actions, not the children.

[neutron]

14. Obama Let his District Down on Safety, then Lied in Iowa

This was a front page story in the NYT this week:
Then you can read why Krugman thinks his Health Plan is crap.

1. People in his district found out the water they were drinking
was radioactive. There was leakage from the local Nuke plant.

2. Obama wrote up a bill to force the Plant to inform people when
there was a leak.

3. The Nuke people opposed the bill

4. Obama received several hundred thousand dollars in donations from
the Nuke reps.

5. Bill never passes.

6. Obama works with the Nuke people and comes up with a bill
PROTECTING the Nuclear Power Plant!

7. In Iowa, Obama brags about his lst bill, claiming that it passed, even
though it did not pass.

I'll put the link below.
But I can tell you, Obama has been carrying on the biggest smear campaign
on the web that I have ever seen.
This has been going on for months. HRC is being smeared and smeared.

If you like Kucinich, you will like what Clinton has done for working people
Check out her endorsements because they list all the insane amount of work
she did for groups like nurses.

Now here is the link. Below that is what Krugman says about Obama's
economic plan.
If you still like Obama, then go for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon....

Responding to Recession
by Paul Krugman

<snip>
Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?
In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.
<snip>
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

[jakem]

2. well that is pretty clear to me.

stupid war. not going. i did not vote for it.

[H2O Man]

3. No, thank you.

I do not think any of our children are obligated to fight, kill, or die fopr Dick Cheney in Iraq. Let's not have our discussions of serious issues spiral downward.

[DebraK]

4. Because we didnt vote for the war, unlike Hillary Clinton

Hillary should be sent to Iraq, she is responsible for so many deaths already... are you justifying this behaviour? Typical hillbot, asking poor people to send their children to war, while endorsing a candidate who sits in an ivory tower signing documents sending our children to war.

Reasons not to vote for corrupt Hillary: (besides the fact she voted for the war in Iraq, she didn't even read the bill for the war and claims the bill was about letting in inspectors even though the bill was titled "Authorisation to use military force in Iraq". She claims she didn't read the bill but asked Bush personally what it was about)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4398804&mesg_id=4398804

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4401210&mesg_id=4401210

From ABC news:

"Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second (to Ron Paul) with about $94,000. Soldiers love Ron and Barack, and lobbyists love Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the No. 1 recipient of lobbyist cash, receiving $823,000 in 2007 from the lobbying industry, which gave about $2.7 million overall."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4346457&mesg_id=4346457

Reasons to vote for Barack Obama: www.barackobama.com/issues

[Didereaux]

5. Nice, then you believe in punishing the kid for the parents mistake..how god-like of you

[thunder rising]

6. The kid is out doing her best to keep the war mongers and lobbyists in power...it's her war too now

[wyldwolf]

17. she's supporting Obama?

[DebraK]

8. Did you not read? I said, let's send Hillary to Iraq. She voted for the war, she can have her war

[H2O Man]

10. Waiting for an answer.

I think your question deserves an answer.

[BootinUp]

21. Sorry it was not a declaration of war and it was not "for war". nt

[H2O Man]

22. Sure it was.

I don't think that anyone seriously viewed it as anything else.

[BootinUp]

25. Yeah, those UN inspectors were just playing over there, and Americans

that supported the resolution to force the inspections where just playing when they polled that way, and the Democratic Senators who voted for it in the hopes that it would be revealed there were no WMD and stop the war where actually voting for an immediate invasion, bla bla bla.

And when Senator Hagel says a no vote on the IWR wouldn't have stopped a war he is just making that up, bla bla bla...

IWRIWRIWRIWRIWRIWRIWRIWR!~!!! yeeeehaaa




The IWR vote should not used as a litmus test - Wes Clark 2003

[H2O Man]

26. The fact that

Senator Hagel states a "no" vote would not have stopped the war does not change the fact that a "yes" vote enabled the Bush-Cheney plan. Senator Hagel, of course, was working with Joe Biden on an effort to actually slow the march to war, when they were betrayed by Dick Gepthardt. I do not think that attempting to use Hagel to justify the IWR vote holds up well.

[BootinUp]

27. This is not complicated, even though you refuse to grasp it

In order to have full blown unobstructed UN inspections it was necessary to put a gun to that assholes head in Iraq. The inspections would have made the case against the war given time. Nobody could predict that Bush would kick them out in March. And weighed against the realities that Hagel points to and that you should know anyways, makes it clear why they voted as they did.

[H2O Man]

28. Oh, I grasp it.

You might want to pretend otherwise, but it was a vote to endorse the Bush-Cheney policy. And the proof is in the pudding.

[Tom Joad]

7. here's hopin' no one signs up... because it's the only way to stop the war. obamahillary won't do it

otherwise.
the people gotta stop this war ourselves.

[Didereaux]

9. Yes, the old '60s 'What if they held a war, and nobody showed up!' i agree

[cali]

11. Thanks for upping the stupidity quotient in GDP

This whole topic is dumb, dumb, dumb.

[ikojo]

12. I have the following relatives in the military

A 25 year old nephew serving as an army medic
A 20 year old nephew serving on a ship outside of Bahrain

A 22 year old niece and her husband recently got out of the Marines, after serving four years. My niece's husband did a year in Iraq.

My older brother was in the military for 20+ years and served during Operation Desert Storm.

As some say, I have a dog in this fight.

It IS about the children of the ruling and economic elite not serving while it is their class that disproportionately benefits from the largesse of war. Easy for their parents to send the poor to fight while they reap the rewards in stock returns and access to markets. Over 58 THOUSAND Americans died fighting in Viet Nam and now American corporations can't move over there quickly enough.

[Didereaux]

16. I am Viet era vet, my son is Navy SSpecWarfare Ops-3 tours in the sandbox...

We have both looked at this and come to the same conclusions: Obama is to much of an unknown; whereas, it is an established fact that the Clintons are swayed by strong public opinion. With two thirds of America against the war I am willing to bet almost anything that Hillaary will withdraw those troops just as rapidly as Obama, and most certainly faster than McCain. btw Sen. McCain personally performed my sons reenlistment at his office last time, so for my son to jump ship for Hillary is a rather telling thing.

[DebraK]

13. Unbelievable. A Clinton supporter asking us to send more of our children to a war that only benefits

their candidate. UNBELIEVE. You're actually asking us why we don't give you more children to fight for your senseless war?

Vote Obama - No supporter of his will ever demand you send your child to partake in a dumb war.

Obama was against it then, and he is against it now.

[Didereaux]

23. I was showing you the absurdity of blaming Chelsea, not asking for you to join! sheesh!

[Windy]

15. Her mother chose to send our kids to war for her ambition. Chelsea has special consideration

over and above those of us who were against going to war but have watched our kids be sent to Iraq when the signed up to go after Al Q after 911!

Her mother agreed to the authorization to use force against Iraq for political purposes so that she wouldn't seem weak to opponents. She put her own ambition first and didn't fight like hell to prevent bush from doing this.

Other dems saw through what he was doing. She didn't. And even if by some chance she did, she didn't want to rock the boat by voting against it and having the repubs nail her for it. An incredibly selfish and incredibly callous reason to vote for a war!

[Occam Bandage]

18. I don't support this war, kthxbai.

[Raine]

19. Because I DIDN'T vote to send anyone over there nt

[rndmprsn]

20. i didn't vote for the damned war, neither did my parents...i already served my time in the military

and i have no kids.

SO WHY DON'T YOU GIVE EM HELL IN IRAQ?

[ShortnFiery]

24. Yeah, that makes sense. Long may the bloated, wealthy, political elites RULE but *not serve.*

:crazy:

My children are still too young. I served in the Military and both my husband and father have made careers out of The Marine Corps and Army respectively.

But Miss Chelsea CLINTON gets slotted into an SIX (6x) figured salary within a Hedge Fund right out of College. :wow: :( The foregoing situation is NOT the realization of "The American Dream" but "The STENCH Political Royalty" at play. :thumbsdown: