waterboard the crusader

We all know the sad story of what happened to Dr. Tiller at the hands of a zealot who views the world in his own perverted view. Now the assailant who I won’t name because he should be forgotten, is threatening more action from behind bars.

In a couple of calls to the AP he has basically stated that if abortion remains legal more violence will occur. Let me repeat that, a known domestic terrorist is threatening more violence, and only he knows the details about that violence.

So using the logic of our former VP doesn’t that mean we should water board him? Waterboarding is wrong but using the logic of the far right, if we only do it to one person its okay right? (No of course it’s not)

Kucinich gets the bail out

The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren’t we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren’t we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers’ money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren’t we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren’t we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren’t we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?

Why aren’t we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren’t we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren’t we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn’t it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls.

As usual Rep. Kucinich gets it, we just don’t get him.

Originally on commondreams.org

business week on the candidates economic policies

I have deeply held beliefs about Obama, however I will leave my ranting out of it and simply leave it to Business Week to lay out this about the plans on the economy that are put forth by McCain and Obama.

Len Burman, a former Treasury tax official who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, says if Obama’s proposals—which include plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts on couples making more than $250,000, close corporate tax loopholes, and tax private equity earnings known as “carried interest” as ordinary income—were adopted in 2009, for example, married couples with earnings in the lowest quintile of the population would see their aftertax income rise 5.8%. Those in the next quintile would see an increase of 4%. Those breaks would be paid for by those with high incomes: the top 1% of taxpayers would see aftertax income fall 8.4%.

Under McCain’s proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.

The complete article can be found here and dugg here

gitmo on the platte

Doesn’t this offend you?

Well it shouldn’t, we already do this at Guantanamo Bay.

I get it some people need to be locked up for their crimes, but not like this, not in subhuman conditions like this.

Some protesters will undoubtedly commit criminal acts and should be arrested but the overwhelming majority just want to speak their peace and there is nothing wrong or illegal about that.

What is wrong are these so called “free speech zones” they’re setting up at the convention sites but that’s a rant for another time…

spoiler alert…

as seen on tv: election 2000 spoiler nader concerning presidential run. spoiler? are you kidding me?

It is not enshrined in law that only democrats or republicans can run, neither is it enshrined in law that people can not vote for those who are not republican or democrat, you can think whatever you want about Nader as a person but he had every right to run for president.

Heck in 2000, I voted for Nader and knowing what I knew then I wouldn’t have voted for Gore, today I would but then there was no way.

So spoiler no way, no how!