HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 298 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 44,979

Journal Archives

That links to this which goes to these stories. Are these credible? Why aren't we seeing them on DU?

Not saying they aren't credible but this is wild stuff if true:

Ukraine Crisis: 'If I Want, I Will Take Kiev in Two Weeks', Putin Warns EU's Barroso

By Jack Moore - September 1, 2014


Then it has these links:

Vladimir Putin Continues Soviet Rhetoric by Questioning Kazakhstan's 'Created' Independence


Ukraine: 100 Troops Dead After Russians Open Fire on Putin's Humanitarian Corridor


Ukraine Crisis: Captured Russian Paratroopers in Troops Swap with Ukrainian Soldiers


Ukraine: 14 Dead after Wounded Ukrainian Troops Blow Themselves Up to Avoid Capture


Why is Vladimir Putin Referring to Eastern Ukraine as 'New Russia'?


I shouldn't be surprised at anything going on, but

Thanks... *steals*

You said, 'Didn't turn out the way you expected did it Georgie Boy.'

I'd say it turned out just the way Bush expected.


Because he's *weak* and shoulda did it alone, like a *real man.* Like this cowboy...

Then the cat ate it:

Twas a twasty wittle Tweet.

Karynnj wrote an opinion piece on this. I'm posting it here for you, but please go give it a K&R:

Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS

Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS

- instead focusing on a "Who lost Syria?" or "who lost Iraq?" story when in fact we never "had" either of them.

Think back to the speech Obama gave to the country when he spoke of the seriousness of the situation. At that point, ISIS was taking city after city and was threatening Baghdad itself. In addition, the Iraqis had failed to even start the process of selecting a government based on the then recent elections. Additionally, the existing government had essentially given no power at all to either the Sunnis or Kurds - something that had made ISIS progress easier.

I have to admit that, at that point, though I agreed that there could be no US military strategy that would "fix" this, I really did not think diplomacy could work either - though I have immense respect for both Obama and John Kerry, who Obama sent to try to work with the Iraqis to get them to form an inclusive government without supporting ANY potential Prime Minister.

Since then:

- US air strikes provided cover to break the seize of those stranded on the mountain by letting them safely escape with help of Kurds and the Iraqi forces. The US also dropped humanitarian goods from the US and allies that were desperately needed.

- Again, with US air cover, the Iraqis and Kurds prevented ISIS from controlling the area including the Mosul Dam.

- The Iraqi President named a man to be Prime Minister and asked him to start to form a government. Al Maliki, who most thought would not voluntarily step down, did just that.

These three achievements were significant and, given where we were when Obama spoke, were better than I would have expected. (Yes, the government is not formed and when it is even under the best intentions, it will take time to show real reforms. Yes, ISIS still commands a huge area and they are a threat.) Yet, the media was more concerned that the President, who did lead this, was on Martha's Vineyard for two weeks.

Then the story became James Foley. I have wondered why I have not seen anyone speculate whether it was ISIS's real defeats, the first after an amazing string of successes for them, that might have led them to brutally execute a man they had held for over a year. I wonder if it was done to 1) change the story - which it instantly did and 2) to make the Sunnis tribes who allied with them reconsider any possible turning against them if it looked like the tide was turning and that there could be a more inclusive Iraqi government. (both because of potential brutal consequences and stemming any story that the US was meeting with any success.)

Yesterday, the same combination of US air cover and the Kurds and Iraqis succeeded in saving another small town. Again US and allied countries' humanitarian goods were dropped. Yet, the coverage on the Sunday shows was all about Obama not doing enough. Feinstein, though a Democrat, was really NOT a balance on this. (Former Governor Richardson was - I think - the only one speaking in defense of Obama and in some coverage of his comments they mostly spoke of him as having supported Obama in 2008 as if this was politics!) In the print media, things were better. The NYT had both a McCain/Graham oped (predictably still arguing for aiding the moderate rebels in Syria and being more aggressive.) and an oped by Kerry explaining conceptually the administration's goals. (On the NYT site, the comments on McCain were devastatingly negative, where Kerry's were mostly cautiously positive or politely disagreeing.)

This morning, Alarabiya, a Saudi Arabian paper, had an interesting article that speaks of both the impact the US has had AND the problems likely to be faced. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/08/31/As-ISIS-fighters-begin-to-blend-in-defeating-them-no-easy-matter.html One point made was that, due to US airstrikes, ISIS was abandoning the Humvees they got when they looted military bases they overran. If this is true, while it could, as the article points out, make them harder to find, but common sense also says that not using them will make it harder for them to expand their area. ( Please consider the source, but the content is pretty interesting.)

Obama is taking a very rational, thoughtful approach here - and one that does not play well in the instant gratification world we live in. If you look at the three victories on the ground, they all completely follow what Obama spoke of as what we were willing to do. I hope that Obama and his administration have the courage and vision to act, when they see they could help, ignoring America's clear desire to withdraw internationally and, on the other side, the courage to ignore the McCains, Grahams and apparently, the Feinsteins, call for more aggressive military action. It is a brave path, which lacks the passionate followers on either extreme on this issue.

to karynnj:


Well done analysis by a thinking DUer. The link gives a '404' page. Never mind, because the OP is fine without it.

This is a continuation of the 'Revolt of the Cities' against holding workers down:

The Revolt of the Cities

During the past 20 years, immigrants and young people have transformed the demographics of urban America. Now, they’re transforming its politics and mapping the future of liberalism.

~ Harold Meyerson

Pittsburgh is the perfect urban laboratory,” says Bill Peduto, the city’s new mayor. “We’re small enough to be able to do things and large enough for people to take notice.” More than its size, however, it’s Pittsburgh’s new government—Peduto and the five like-minded progressives who now constitute a majority on its city council—that is turning the city into a laboratory of democracy. In his first hundred days as mayor, Peduto has sought funding to establish universal pre-K education and partnered with a Swedish sustainable-technology fund to build four major developments with low carbon footprints and abundant affordable housing. Even before he became mayor, while still a council member, he steered to passage ordinances that mandated prevailing wages for employees on any project that received city funding and required local hiring for the jobs in the Pittsburgh Penguins’ new arena. He authored the city’s responsible-banking law, which directed government funds to those banks that lent in poor neighborhoods and away from those that didn’t...

Peduto, who is 49 years old, sees improving the lot of Pittsburgh’s new working class as his primary charge. In his city hall office, surrounded by such artifacts as a radio cabinet from the years when the city became home to the world’s first radio station, the new mayor outlined the task before him. “My grandfather, Sam Zarroli, came over in 1921 from Abruzzo,” he said. “He only had a second-grade education, but he was active in the Steel Workers Organizing Committee in its early years, and he made a good life for himself and his family. My challenge in today’s economy is how to get good jobs for people with no PhDs but with a good work ethic and GEDs. How do I get them the same kind of opportunities my grandfather had? All the mayors elected last year are asking this question.”

They are indeed. The mayoral and council class of 2013 is one of the most progressive cohorts of elected officials in recent American history. In one major city after another, newly elected officials are planning to raise the minimum wage or enact ordinances boosting wages in developments that have received city assistance. They are drafting legislation to require inner-city hiring on major projects and foster unionization in hotels, stores, and trucking. They are seeking the funds to establish universal pre-K and other programs for infants and toddlers. They are sketching the layout of new transit lines that will bring jobs and denser development to neighborhoods both poor and middle-class and reduce traffic and pollution in the bargain. They are—if they haven’t done so already—forbidding their police from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the deportation of undocumented immigrants not convicted of felonies and requiring their police to have video or audio records of their encounters with the public. They are, in short, enacting at the municipal level many of the major policy changes that progressives have found themselves unable to enact at the federal and state levels. They also may be charting a new course for American liberalism.

New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio has dominated the national press corps’ coverage of the new urban liberalism. His battles to establish citywide pre-K (successful but not funded, as he wished, by a dedicated tax on the wealthy), expand paid sick days (also successful), raise the minimum wage (blocked by the governor and legislature), and reform the police department’s stop-and-frisk policy (by dropping an appeal of a court order) have been extensively chronicled. But de Blasio is just one of a host of mayors elected last year who campaigned and now govern with similar populist agendas. The list also includes Pittsburgh’s Peduto, Minneapolis’s Betsy Hodges, Seattle’s Ed Murray, Boston’s Martin Walsh, Santa Fe’s Javier Gonzales...“We all ran on similar platforms,” Peduto says. “There wasn’t communication among us. It just emerged organically that way. We all faced the reality of growing disparities. The population beneath the poverty line is increasing everywhere. A lot of us were underdogs, populists, reformers, and the public was ready for us.”

Much more at the link:


to ProSense.

The thread recieved no attention, but the link details a lot of what is going and not covered by national media:


Obama also went across the country to push for increasing the minimum wage last year in red states, reported on DU. The blue cities were also supported by some White House aides bringing information to use.

But people must vote for those who want this solution instead of the Koch solution, the default position, in office:

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”


I watched as Democrats spoke to either hostile GOP or empty seats about raising the wage for years in the House and Senate. We need to take about what is right in seeking prevailing wages and worker rights again.

It's very hard to fight off the Koch's nationally and locally. They have money and organization, but those they disregard can make a difference, if they care enough to vote.

The most heartbreaking speech by Sanders was one I posted here. He said he fears people most affected by these issues will not get out to vote this year. Apathy and the purveyors of FUD always serves the status quo.

I felt watching Bernie in that speech, that this is his last effort. He has the heart of a lion but a lion knows he cannot defeat an elephant without a pack of lions interested in doing so.


McCain looked into those eyes and saw his soul. The question is, does McCain have one to judge by?

Better yet, since Cruz is now running buddies with the Koch brothers, promoting war with ISIS, do they want war with ISIS?

McCain sings the same song, is the fascist Koch duo funneling money to ISIS to bring down the USA?

You know that's what they want. They can get paid back both ways.

But they just can't get past Obama holding back the dogs of war so they are foaming at the mouth. With the assistance of the media.

Try to feel the way you did when you were last loved. Remember those sweet dreams.

She's doing WHAT? I don't have cable. Who is she shilling for, really?

Ted Cruz? Charles Koch? The GOP?

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 298 Next »