With my Evelyn Wood speed reading classes, it appears many feel the fight for freedom, is about opposition gov. to for the Iraq war.
The consitution's mention, "to provide for the common defense" provides for war.
There was a Democratic mention also, blamming.
At the time of war with/in Iraq, most didnot protest. None of it! Epsecially the 'Patriotic Act', ( the librarians warned) now finds energy (only) to protest.
Okay what then does not come into question. Where's the books on that, what's to offer 'the day after'.
I err on the side of caution assessing this administration's handlling. Congrats, to the Commander in Chief for ending attacks on America.
It took great balls at his time in battle. I know our president did his best. We were under attack. Mistakes were destine, but the attacks had to and or had to be made to stop.
They all need to get off the stage (unless campaigning) and get to work.
Yep! Iraq is more f'd up than when we tried to fix it. We did what we could, nothing was directed act the people of Iraq. Where many factions are staking and restaking their claims. The dictator is deceased! He did his job, establishing himself, a champion challenger...
Now, its on the Iraqis. With their resources to live and die. But of course for our common defense and compassion we'll remain intrumentral.
Oh and as for the troop sympathisesr? As a Marine " we vow to die in the fight for freedom." Under the Commander in Chief. There's no greater honor.
Use your energy to produce more of us. We're thankful for the opportunity to defend/offend...
Dear Eric,
I totally respect your point of view on the war; it is shared by
many. Personally, I have considered the Iraqi invasion strange from
the start, at best, since no one in Iraq attacked us (of course, they
are probably ready to do that now! after we have destroyed their
country). I have no problem with Marines, or anyone else
volunteering, with their own life and they own money (not my taxes)
to go abroad and "free" whatever they see fit. Unfortunately, that is
not what happens; instead we crowd out lasting prosperity arising
from free commerce with huge government spending that wil surely sink
us all faster than global warming! And, yes, you are correct, our
Constitution does provide for war: "CONGRESS shall have the power to
declare war."
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "eric dupree"
<dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
With my Evelyn Wood speed reading classes, it appears many feel the
fight for freedom, is about opposition gov. to for the Iraq war.
The consitution's mention, "to provide for the common defense"
provides for war.
There was a Democratic mention also, blamming.
At the time of war with/in Iraq, most didnot protest. None of it!
Epsecially the 'Patriotic Act', ( the librarians warned) now finds
energy (only) to protest.
Okay what then does not come into question. Where's the books on
that, what's to offer 'the day after'.
I err on the side of caution assessing this administration's
handlling. Congrats, to the Commander in Chief for ending attacks on
America.
It took great balls at his time in battle. I know our president did
his best. We were under attack. Mistakes were destine, but the
attacks had to and or had to be made to stop.
They all need to get off the stage (unless campaigning) and get to
work.
Yep! Iraq is more f'd up than when we tried to fix it. We did what
we could, nothing was directed act the people of Iraq. Where many
factions are staking and restaking their claims. The dictator is
deceased! He did his job, establishing himself, a champion
challenger...
Now, its on the Iraqis. With their resources to live and die. But
of course for our common defense and compassion we'll remain
intrumentral.
Oh and as for the troop sympathisesr? As a Marine " we vow to die
in the fight for freedom." Under the Commander in Chief. There's no
greater honor.
Use your energy to produce more of us. We're thankful for the
opportunity to defend/offend...
> From: "Mike Denny" <mike@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss]
FW: ???
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:43:06 -0800
>
>
> From my friend Mesha in the Bayview.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Iolmisha@... [mailto:Iolmisha@…]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: undisclosed-recipients
> Subject: ???
>
>
>
>
>
> Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
>
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
TR
>
kNzdiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MTU3MjcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzOTg1BG1zZ
0l
> kAzI1MjkwBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzNzY2ODk->
>
> Posted by: "bob" bobo926@...
> <mailto:bobo926@…?Subject=%20Re%3ANader%20and%20Libertarians%2
> 0Not%20Welcome> bobz640 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/bobz640>
>
> Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:32 am (PST) February 12, 2007
>
> Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
> A Splintered Antiwar Movement
>
> By John Walsh
>
> The roster of speakers for the UFPJ demonstration in Washington
D.C. on
> January 27 speaks volumes. The key was not so much who was
included but
> who
> was not. The list of speakers certainly had a lot of wonderful
activists
> in
> the peace movement, but to a considerable degree it was a line-up
of
> Democrats and movie stars.
>
> Ralph Nader, who was in Washington that weekend, was pointedly not
> invited
> to speak. On Saturday night Nader was reportedly inquiring of
other
> independents just who had been invited to speak among their
growing
> number.
> Imagine that; the only antiwar candidate in the 2004 elections
was not
> an
> invited speaker, even though he and Cindy Sheehan drew tremendous
> applause
> at the last mass rally in 2005 (Notice how these rallies occur
now only
> in
> only non-election years, nicely tailored to get activists to work
for
> Dems,
> but not to pressure the Dems to take a strong anti-war stand.) The
> non-invitation removed Nader from the movement every bit as
effectively
> as
> the censors armed with air brushes removed dissidents in
the "socialist"
> Czech republic chronicled by Milan Kundera.
>
> Nor was there anyone who spoke
> as a representative of the Green Party, even though at least one
speaker
> was
> in fact a Green and even though an informal survey showed an
enormous
> number
> of people in the crowd were Greens or Green sympathizers. Yes, the
> Greens
> were "permitted" a feeder march but their only organized presence
on the
> Mall that this writer could find was a small card table with
three women
> staffing it.
>
> There was not a single Libertarian speaker even though the
Libertarians
> and
> Old Right have been far more outspoken in opposing the war than
the
> liberal
> "Left."
> Compare the pages of The American Conservative or Antiwar.com with
> the editorials of The Nation, which endorsed the pro-war Kerry
candidacy
> in
> 2004. This writer tried for months to get Ron Paul, the
> Libertarian/Republican Congressman from Texas, now a Republican
> presidential candidate, invited to speak at the rally and did so
also in
> 2005. Several of us made an appeal to get Justin Raimondo, the
> Libertarian editor of
> Antiwar.com invited to speak.
>
> We got no response from UFPJ, and still have
> received none.
> In contrast, Raimondo advertised the UFPJ demonstration in a
> prominent place on his web site, and he even offered to pay his
own air
> fare
> to D.C. to speak. But no response was forthcoming from whatever
> committee
> decides on the speakers, a committee which is none too visible.
UFPJ was
> just plain rude to Raimondo. In general it appears that the
liberal
> "Left"
> has scant knowledge about the Libertarians and less desire to
acquire
> it.
> Libertarians are just "a bunch of selfish people," according to
the PC
> liberals. But there are more things in heaven and earth than the
very PC
> have dreamed of.
>
> There were far fewer kaffiyas in evidence than in the past, the
> inevitable
> result of reading ANSWER out of the official antiwar movement.
(To be
> fair,
> Noura Erekat and Joshua Reubner, both from the same organization,
US
> Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, spoke.)
>
> The only reason given for UFPJ's severing relations with ANSWER
is that
> their members were "impossible to deal with in meetings." That is
hardly
> a political reason. Bad manners are not a reason for
excommunication. If
> so, the antiwar forces would not be talking to the crotchety
Barney
> Frank. I do not know a lot about ANSWER, but I do have a great
deal of
> respect for Ramsey Clark, one of its leaders.
> And I also have a lot of respect for ANSWER's ability to turn out
young
> people and its boldness in organizing events like the
demonstration
> against Bush on the occasion of his inauguration. At the
demonstration I
> heard no mention of AIPAC's obvious role in ginning up the war on
Iraq
> or Iran. At this point in the development of the movement after
the
> paper of Measheimer and Walt and
> after Jimmy Carter's book, this is indeed a troubling omission.
>
> What is the matter with Democratic politicians, you may say.
Nothing, as
> such. And the politicians speaking at the rally were among the
best that
> the
> timid Dems have to offer - Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Dennis
> Kucinich,
> for example. But these Democrats do not represent the Democratic
Party;
> they
> are an idealistic few on its fringe. To have only Democrats and no
> others is
> to create the false impression that the Democratic Party is a
vehicle
> for
> peace. And it creates false hopes about what the Dems will do
without
> mighty
> pressure.
>
> So the peace movement is being increasingly tied to the Democratic
> Party.
> This is certainly the strategy of MoveOn.org and of "P"DA
("Progressive"
> Democrats of America) - and now apparently also UFPJ. This may be
why
> the
> rally seemed far smaller and certainly far less spirited, stodgy
I would
> say, than in the past.
>
> Let's hope that the hard working and committed people
> working in UFPJ turn from this path and do more to bring the
splintered
> movement together. Because if the antiwar movement is divided, we
are
> subject to being conquered - just as surely as the Sunni and the
Shia.
> It is
> time for the Democratic Party to serve the Peace Movement and not
the
> other
> way around. We shall see what course UFPJ takes to turn this
around.
> Right
> now, it does not look good.
>
> John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@...
> <mailto:John.Endwar%40gmail.com> .
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh02122007.html>
=
Indoor Mini Trampoline Equipment Source
Al Carter's line of Reboundair mini trampolines. Lifetime warranty.
Rebound aerobics videos, books and accessories, plus a helpful index
of rebounding links. Comparison with other products.
redirectid=d2e2f0d25b640ddbc836a1977b3b88ec