International vote? Oh you mean the hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN military personnel all over the world who have been in harms way for the last 11 years... over and over again?
Our country shouldn't be divided like this, we're all part of it and have allowed this opposing football team attitude to flourish unchecked. It's time to pool our energies towards a more reasonable and sane country... so we can deal positively together on our very real problems.
Now if it would just be a wake up call... that a whole lot of Americans care more about their country than the rich neocons pocketbooks... no matter what other BS they try to drown you in.
It was pretty blatantly obvious that they could give a rats patootie about the other 98%... I'd say heads up, the old think tank strategies backfired this time.
I have few words at the moment.... tomorrow is another day and I will start to rant anew.... about Mr. President towing the line we've created for him... but for now:
This pretty much reflects my opinion on the subject:
Why I am (Reluctantly) Voting for Barack Obama by Jerry Bowles on 11/03/2012
On Tuesday I will go early to my local polling place and vote to re-elect Barack Obama. I do so with a heavy heart (to borrow a phrase from Lyndon Johnson, a far more "socialist" President from an earlier era). Putting aside the historic achievement of being the first black person to be elected President, Obama's tenure has been mixed. To say that he has failed to be the transformative political leader we had hoped for is to understate the case.
My disappointment with Obama is not based on his handling of the economy. The country was in a deep economic death spiral when he took office. The housing market was collapsing dragging the nation' banks down with it. Detroit was broke and unemployment was rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. The stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through stress tests and forcing them to raise capital helped avert a Depression. True, his economic advisors were too optimistic in their scenario for recovery but John McCain could certainly have done no better under the circumstances. You don't get points in politics for "it could have been worse" but Obama deserves credit for exactly that.
I do fault Obama and the administration for letting the Democrats in Congress divy up the stimulus money and hand it out to their patrons on the notion that any money spent in this kind of economy would produce some results. It would have been much better to have a targeted national plan of reconstruction to rebuild critical infrastructure--something I think the White House recognizes now.
I also fault Obama for not ever seriously pushing for a single-payer health care system of the type that every other major industrialized nation has. It is no secret that we spend more money on our current system than anybody and get mediocre results. Sure, we have the best health care in the world--for the people who can afford it. The rest of us? Not so much.
Genetically altered foods are actually quite a complex and sinister issue, it's not JUST about what you eat (which can also be dangerous btw)... but so much more.
While initially they were brought about to solve some physical problem.. beauty, repelling a particular pest, length of shipping and storage etc... they have now become a way to form a new seed monopoly for Monsanto. Modified seed cannot be saved for next years crop, so it has to be purchased from the one and only supplier... guess who? While our true pure heirloom are being altered at a remarkable rate.
Take a couple of hours on a rainy evening and nform yourselves!!!
But point of fact being the war mongers outnumber the pacifists by a bunch. You have to smack them up the side of the head with a 2x4 to make any point whatsoever over their chortling, back slapping and screaming... but you are absolutely correct... really a Oh DUH moment there, so yup.. guilty.
Have a position.. other than being an observer of our ironies?
1981... well that's stretchin' it... and once again, why is it only WE are allowed to police the world? Seems that should be the neutral Swiss' job.. after all you're the ones holding the REAL cash, now that's definitely something to protect these days.
"Interagency feuding has ruined the Bush administration's capacity to make its case in public, and a high-level preference for deniable leaking has further compounded the problem."
Hmmm... makes you wonder what all that interagency feuding was about ay? Some for, and some thinking "Is he out of his mind?".
“When their math doesn’t add up, Republicans claim that their vague version of economic growth will somehow magically make up the difference. And when that is refuted, they’re left with nothing more to lean on than charges of bias against nonpartisan experts.”
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."
Yeah well even he was pretty disgusted with himself over all the pressure he got until he caved, if you'll remember shortly after he absented himself from the madness and refused to play anymore.
So I still think he's a good man, even tho you think there's a rat under every damn wood pile from here to kingdom come... gotta give some of those wood piles the benefit of the doubt Ray...
There has never been any of that sort of thing when the inflammatory Right wingnuts are around... which tends to be aaahh, always .
You really must have this place mistaken with a civil and rational democracy my dear, where people actually pinpoint the REAL problems and then pool ideas 'together' to solve them instead of blaming everyone but yourselves... and that certainly wouldn't be here!
RE: Obama or Romney for President: simple vote here. one vote only. ;-}
International vote? Oh you mean the hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN military personnel all over the world who have been in harms way for the last 11 years... over and over again?