AND FOR TODAY.....BARACK OBAMA IS FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dean is first.

But Gore is coming up on KOOP radio.

http://www.koop.org/?page=streaming 

1.

Yessss! I hope Barack is first in every primary and in the general election in Nov.

An answer of mine to a question from Seashell from the previous thread:

In answer to seashell's question of  "Why are repugs allowed to caucus for dems?"  The reason is that everyone that isn't already registered as a Democrat (Independents and Republicans) is required to re-register to vote and mark the Democratic Party box.  And then they have to sign on a sheet that has a statement of loyalty to the Democratic Party.  As soon as they do that they are considered to be Democratic Party members. In my caucus, the new people were fairly well evenly split between the candidates.  Biden actually got the most of the new party members, followed by Edwards.

Alternative Radio--Gore on the Constitution

Replay of 2006 speeech. 

Monica,

I'm sorry to say that there weren't any Dodd folks at my caucus.  I thought that there would be a few.

At least one of the 'second tier' candidates got a delegate to the county convention.  That was one for Biden.  I started off in the Richardson camp and I was the last one to realign when Richardson wasn't viable.  I ended up going to the Obama camp because it was the best shot to deny Hillary another delegate.  Obama and Hillary were tied in numbers and using the tiebreaker rule, Obama got the delegate that was at stake. 

some NH supporters for Obama:

both of the two NH U.S. House of reps:

U.S. Rep Carol Shea-Porter, 1st district

U.S. Rep Paul Hodes, 2nd district

film producer Ken Burns:

 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

Some facts about last night's victory in Iowa 

by Sam Graham-Felsen

Friday, January 04, 2008 at 01:38 PM

Last night, Barack Obama made history in Iowa with a dramatic and decisive victory. He won by bringing an unprecedented number of voters into the process, including thousands of Republicans and Independents who registered as Democrats in order to support Obama.

The entrance polls show just how dominating Obama’s win was and dispel some myths about his candidacy:

• Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%
• Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%
• Obama beat Clinton and Edwards among voters of almost every income level (Obama and Clinton tied among voters who make $15-30,000)
• As many voters age 17-29 as voters 65 and older participated last night -- in previous years senior participation has been 5-times greater than younger voters.
• Obama beat Edwards and Clinton among voters who want change (51%-20%-19%)
• Despite countless attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative mail, TV, and radio, Obama beat Clinton and Edwards (34%-30%-27%) among voters who say health care is the most important issue
• Obama won among those who said the economy was the most important issue (36%-26%-26%)
• Obama won over Clinton and Edwards (35%-26%-17%) among those who said Iraq was the most important issue
• Won across the ideological spectrum – winning among liberals, moderates and conservatives
• Won among high income and lower income voters among voters with household income below $50,000 (34%-32%-19%) and among those over $50,000 (41%-19%-28%)
• Also won among the 82% of voters who said Pakistan was “very or somewhat important”

From previous blog: 

DFA's Charles Chamberline didn't like 5% of Obama's speech??? Charles remains cautious because Obama is promising to reach across the aisle??

Please, give me a break. If we are to ever get anything meaningful done in Washington, it will be because Obama will have actually reached across the aisle to represent all Americans, that will be his duty and that is the way government is supposed to work.

Again, Dean is always first here. Obama can share today but this is not the Obama for America blog, even though there are many of his supporters here.

And Barack: your rhetoric is great, but I've been around during the eras of the Great Ones who not only orated, but delivered -from FDR to the Kennedy brothers, both sadly lost when we needed them most. Your victory in Iowa is not just a victory. It is a huge responsibility.

That rhetoric had better mean something.

*************
You all know the results. Here's the report from the Guardian.

============
Iowa upsets deliver wins for Huckabee and Obama
Suzanne Goldenberg and Ewen MacAskill in Des Moines
Friday January 4, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

Barack Obama swept away any sense of inevitability about Hillary Clinton's march to the White House last night, scoring an upset victory in the Iowa caucuses that dramatically alters the Democratic race.

Republican voters also rejected the established order, awarding a convincing victory to Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher who until two months ago was a virtual unknown outside his native Arkansas.

The results were especially cruel for Clinton who was relegated to third place behind John Edwards. It was a dramatic setback for a candidate once seen in control of a formidable political machine, and could damage her prospects in New Hampshire where the race has tightened in recent days.

In a jubilant victory party for supporters, Obama said he had demonstrated to cynics that there was a new way of doing politics. "We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and as Independents to stand up and say: we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come."

Huckabee also benefited from a new method of organisation. He relied on a network of evangelical Christian voters to power to his first place finish over Mitt Romney, who had outspent Huckabee in the state nearly 20 to one.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33195...

According to a late December Los Angeles Times poll, just 22 percent of voters in Iowa and 21 percent of voters in New Hampshire think the country is going in the right direction, compared to 69 percent and 72 percent respectively who think we’re on the wrong track.

The desire for change is particularly sharp on Iraq—the issue that voters in both states put at the top of their priority list for presidential candidates to address. Voters in Iowa (57 percent to 35 percent) and New Hampshire (65 percent to 28 percent) overwhelmingly say that the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over.

Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are also overwhelmingly convinced that U.S. troops should begin coming home from Iraq in the next year. In Iowa, 66 percent want U.S. troops either withdrawn immediately (20 percent) or within a year (40 percent). And the numbers are similar in New Hampshire; 68 percent want U.S. troops either home immediately (22 percent) or within a year (46 percent).

These numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire are consistent with those from national polls, which also show the overwhelming desire for change. As just one example, in an early November NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 74 percent of respondents said they think the next president should take a different approach than Bush, compared to just 20 percent who said the next president’s approach should be similar.

So when the smoke clears and the dust settles from this year’s nomination battles, the parties’ nominees will have to convince a change-oriented electorate that they can, in fact, take America in a new direction—a new direction that will begin with changing Bush’s misguided Iraq policy. The candidate who can do that will no doubt be the victor in November.

 By Ruy Teixeira

January 4, 2008

(Worth a click if you care to see the charts) 

CNN is still trying to give Clinton, their preferred Dem candidate, a chunk of Edward's' second place finish in Iowa by calling it a "virtual tie."

Close, yes, but this is not horseshoes. It's an election. CNN once again full of cr*p.

When I saw this report (not necessarily related to US elections, btw), I had to run to the window to see whether pigs were actually flying about outside. LOL

They weren't, but if this report is true, it is definitely an acknowledgement in the right direction.

And in the Swiss papers today, there's an article about the Swiss government acting as an intermediary between Israel & Hamas to see whether the two sides will begin to talk.

Please God. It's the only way.

======================
Israeli PM criticises West Bank settlements
Allegra Stratton and agencies
Friday January 4, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has made unusually critical remarks about his country's policy of building settlements in the West Bank.

Olmert acknowledged that by continuing to build West Bank settlements, Israel was flouting the spirit of the recently revived peace plan.

Olmert's remarks came just days before the US president, George Bush, embarks on his first and last Middle Eastern diplomatic visit. Bush is expected to arrive in Jerusalem on January 9 to urge Israel and the Palestinians towards a peace accord by the end of 2008.

Any agreement is to be based on the internationally backed "road map" peace plan, officially relaunched in talks last November in Maryland after seven years of violence.

The road map foundered shortly after it was presented in 2003 because neither side met initial obligations; Israel did not halt the construction of West Bank settlements and the Palestinians did not crack down on militants.

Israel has long maintained that it has the right to continue further developing existing settlements to account for ill-defined "natural growth" of the existing population of settlers - something the "road map" explicitly bans.

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Olmert acknowledged Israel was not honouring its commitments.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33196...

for Obama: 

Carol Shea-Porter:

well, off for my drive home

(remember - if ya thought Iowa had a number of independents, New Hampshire per capita has a lot more, with Obama and McCain both fighting for their support)

CNN International is much better generally than the crap you captive audiences get, Joan. There was an excellent piece tonight on child sexual trafficking in India.

*********
putzCo continues to leave a real mess for whoever succeeds.

===========
US jobless figures up as economy suffers severe downturn

Shares went into sharp retreat on both sides of the Atlantic today as gloomy jobs data from the United States heightened fears over prospects for the global economy.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled more than 180 points, taking it below the 13,000 level. In London, earlier gains were wiped out, with the FTSE 100 index trading more than 140 points down towards the close.

Unemployment in the US rose to its highest level in more than two years last month as the job-creation machine in the world's biggest economy virtually ground to a halt, according to figures released in Washington today.

The Labor Department prompted fresh speculation on Wall Street that the Feberal Reserve would cut interest rates later this month when it said the jobless rate rose from 4.7% to 5% in December. It also sent the FTSE 100 index down into negative territory, wiping out earlier gains, and pushed the dollar down against a range of currencies including sterling.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/...

Pope Benny XVI probably has more in common with Huckabee than with Obama.

Interestingly, a couple weeks back, I was in Benny's home town of Regensberg. I hadn't really realized that before the visit, but our guide was very proud of it.

===================
Science bows to theology as the Pope dismantles Vatican observatory
By Peter Popham in Rome
Published: 04 January 2008

Science is to make way for diplomacy at the Pope's summer residence, with the dismantling of the astronomical observatory that has been part of Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, for more than 75 years. The Pope needs more room to receive diplomats so the telescopes have to go.

The eviction of the astronomers and their instruments, reported by the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, and their removal to a disused convent a mile away, marks the end of a period of intimacy between popes and priest-astronomers that has lasted well over a century.

Father Jose G Funes, the present director of the observatory, known as the Specola Vaticana, insisted that there was no sinister significance in the move. "It is not a downgrading of science in the Vatican," he said. "To remain within the palace would have had only a symbolic significance, whereas where we are going we will be even more comfortable. Nearly everybody is in agreement with the move even though I realise that every change produces disquiet." His predecessor, Father George Coyne, said, "I agree completely with Father Funes. We have discussed the issues many times together and with the rest of our Jesuit staff."

But symbolism is exactly what close watchers of Pope Benedict XVI see in the move: confirmation of the view that he is far less receptive to what scientists – including scientists in dog collars – want to tell him than his recent predecessors. He has, for example, spoken in favour of intelligent design, in flat contradiction of the views of the observatory's former director.

[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/art...

Perhaps there is hope for Sarko yet.

===============
Sarkozy: give more honours to women
By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 03 January 2008

Wanted in a tearing hurry: distinguished French women. Medals, with smart blue or red ribbons, guaranteed. Civil servants need not apply.

As part of his mission to blow the dust off French public life, President Nicolas Sarkozy has rejected the country's New Year honours list. The proposals put forward by ministries were, he said, too dominated by men and overstuffed with state employees and politicians.

[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/art...

Take care all and TGIF!!

Hi Folks,

Judy for Dean, yes, you are so right, a huge responsibility, and I hope that he is up to it and that the country is up to it to give him the support he will need if elected.  And yes, Joan in Florida, he does have to reach across the aisles.

I was thinking  about when Howard Dean first caught our attention. He was angry, and so were we.  We needed to be angry and to have him articulate it.  but, all things change.  The American people, most (I think) are woefully uninformed, respond viscerally, respond to a presence that the candidate represents. (How else could a demented Ronald Reagan be re-elected?)  

I seriously wonder if the American people would elect a candidate that they perceived as angry.  Dean paved the way for this crucial 2008 election.  He was as important as any candidate we see in front of us now.  I'm hoping should a Democrat be elected that Howard will serve in the cabinet or in some post.  We need him, and we are grateful for him.

Linda in SFNM, I agree that Edwards' remark to Howard Dean during the debate that "we don't need people like you coming down here to tell us what to do" was offputting.  I think, though, in fairness, it was a knee jerk reaction, a defensive stance that just came out.  I think we have to be more tolerant and understanding of the stresses on people as they are going through this process.

Neat article on Jan. 2nd in The Christian Science Monitor about over medication in our health system.  I'll post the URL.

We are kidding ourselves if we think there's simple solution to this health industry. It's the biggest industry in the country and it includes everything from health care workers to for-profit hospitals, to drugs, to health supplements, to naturopathic medicines and treatments, to tests, to exercise programs, to nursing homes.  It is embedded.  For instance, I'm a lifetime member of the National Education Association.Guess what--they sell long term health care insurance, term life insurance, etc.  Simplistic solutions won't do it, and though I'm a fan of Michael Moore's, I don't think receiveing money from the health corporations disqualifies Obama or any other candidate. 

Here's the URL for "When a Pound of Cure Is Too Much" from The Christian Science Monitor Jan. 2nd.  I'll post a few paragraphs also.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0102/p14s01-bogn.html 

from the January 2, 2008 edition

Page 1 of 2

Most Americans know that the healthcare crisis in the United States is a two-headed monster: First, medical care is too expensive. And, largely because it's so expensive, that care doesn't reach millions of people who are poor or uninsured.

But what few may realize is that the crisis has an ugly third face: Many Americans receive too much medical care. Those excess pills, heart stents, MRIs, radical mastectomies, and other treatments not only are often ineffective and waste hundreds of billions of dollars, they also sometimes harm the patients they are intending to help.

That's the fascinating, counter­intuitive, and potentially revolutionary conclusion of award-winning science journalist Shannon Brownlee in Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer. A reader is likely to come away agreeing with Brownlee that reform of the $2.1 trillion American healthcare industry – already the size of the entire economy of Italy and rapidly growing – will never happen unless some uncomfortable truths are confronted.

Among them:

•A shockingly tiny proportion of medical treatments and drugs have strong scientific evidence of effectiveness to back them up. Dr. David Eddy, a heart surgeon and healthcare economist, estimates "that as little as 15 percent of what doctors do is backed up by valid evidence." The prestigious Institute of Medicine, Brownlee adds, "estimates that only 4 percent of treatments and tests are backed up by strong scientific evidence; more than half have very weak evidence or none."

•The amount and type of "care a person receives depends less on what kind of care he needs and more on where he happens to live." That conclusion has been documented in decades of groundbreaking statistical research conducted by Dr. John Wennberg at Dartmouth Medical School and others. It shows that individual doctors take highly varied approaches to treating diseases based more on hunches than solid research.

•Despite Americans' eagerness to gain access to specialists, "the more specialists involved in your health, the more likely it is that you will suffer from a medical error, that you will be given care you don't need and be harmed by it."

•Unlike in other industries, the introduction of new technologies into medicine usually doesn't bring costs down, but boosts them.

The bottom line? Americans spend between one-fifth and one-third of their healthcare dollars – $500 billion to $700 billion – on medical care "that does nothing to improve our health," Brownlee concludes.

Brownlee, a former US News & World Report health reporter, has won several prestigious journalism awards, including the 2004 Association of Health Care Journalists Award for Excellence in Health Care Journalism and the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting. In "Overtreated," which New York Times economic columnist David Leonhardt recently called the best economics book of 2007, she takes a cleareyed look at some baffling questions.

Why do people allow themselves and their loved ones to be overtreated? Insurance coverage makes many people feel that someone else is paying and that they might as well wring all the services they can out of their coverage. Patients trust that their doctors will have only their best interests at heart and not recommend useless or unnecessary treatment.

John Edwards finished second in Iowa but you'd sure never know it from reports both on tv and on the internets. It's amazing. I'm attaching a link from the WSJ which should have John Edwards in the recap - but it has Hillary instead. Why am I attaching this? Because you need to read the first sentence about the teenage boy who asked Hillary why she thought people didn't like her. Her answer is exactly why she lost.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11994042...

If we are to ever get anything meaningful done in Washington, it will be because Obama will have actually reached across the aisle to represent all Americans

The only way you'll ever get bipartisanship with GOP gangsters is to capitulate or collaborate -- which is exactly what DCDems have been and are doing. If that's what Obama is promising, it's just more of the same.

grouped by interests, money through October, 3rd Quarter fundraising.


Pharmaceuticals/Health Products

Hillary Clinton (D)
$269,436

Barack Obama (D)
$261,784

Mitt Romney (R)
$260,535

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$138,850

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$84,400

John McCain (R)
$69,300

Bill Richardson (D)
$28,950

Fred Thompson (R)
$26,900

Ron Paul (R)
$20,568

John Edwards (D)
$15,000

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$13,425

Sam Brownback (R)
$12,750

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)
$5,100

Duncan Hunter (R)
$4,050

Tom Tancredo (R)
$3,250

Mike Gravel (D)
$2,208

Mike Huckabee (R)
$500

-----

Insurance

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$713,012

Mitt Romney (R)
$629,167

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$530,615

Hillary Clinton (D)
$525,938

Barack Obama (D)
$390,513

John McCain (R)
$246,524

Bill Richardson (D)
$179,508

John Edwards (D)
$129,600

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$84,575

Fred Thompson (R)
$80,700

Ron Paul (R)
$34,821

Mike Huckabee (R)
$23,550

Sam Brownback (R)
$12,950

Duncan Hunter (R)
$6,350

Tom Tancredo (R)
$1,850

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)
$1,250

Mike Gravel (D)
$500

-------------

Hedge Funds

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$1,157,900

Hillary Clinton (D)
$980,700

Barack Obama (D)
$976,574

Mitt Romney (R)
$947,500

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$915,950

John McCain (R)
$331,850

John Edwards (D)
$252,550

Bill Richardson (D)
$129,400

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$61,200

Fred Thompson (R)
$34,200

Sam Brownback (R)
$20,150

Ron Paul (R)
$6,300

Tom Tancredo (R)
$1,500

Duncan Hunter (R)
$1,000

Contributions from Selected Industries

------------


Securities & Investment

Hillary Clinton (D)
$4,735,730

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$4,506,026

Barack Obama (D)
$4,505,199

Mitt Romney (R)
$3,561,387

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$2,609,566

John McCain (R)
$1,781,260

John Edwards (D)
$773,600

Bill Richardson (D)
$549,250

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$355,300

Fred Thompson (R)
$300,375

Ron Paul (R)
$89,054

Sam Brownback (R)
$78,201

Mike Huckabee (R)
$77,727

Duncan Hunter (R)
$8,350

Tom Tancredo (R)
$7,600

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)
$1,750

Mike Gravel (D)
$750

----------------
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select...




I don't see how we are going to be moving forward. People make excuses for the same Corporate control and we will not have the change for the people.


with that, a hat tip to ya'll

And that 5 percent Charles worries about, like Joe Lieberman voting with the Democrats 95 percent of the time. That 5 percent is the most important votes of all.

17.

CNN International is much better generally than the crap you captive audiences get, Joan.

Judy

I'm not sure what you meant about "captive audiences."

We receive CNN International here every weekday by satellite. It is also available to watch on CNN.com. Many cable companies carry it as well.

It is an interesting take on the world news, quite apart from that seen on CNN.

The only way to get anything done with the current majorities in the House and Senate is for both sides to compromise.
The only ways to avoid that is:
1 – Win the Presidency so we only need simple majorities so the current configuration will work. (The VP is the tie-braker)
2 – If a Repub wins then we need 61 Dems to create a veto-proof majority in the Senate (counting Liebermann as a Dem) or 60 not including Lieberman.
Since we have the House, we can dictate the bills. Getting rid of Pelosi and Reid would make our majorities more meaningful.

In the business world, if I ran into an opponent that would not compromise, the tactic is to bypass them and make them irrelevant. The way to make the Repub side irrelevant is to get either a veto-proof majority or simple majority and win the WH.

compromise is the end result in a negotiating. IT is not the excuse to give on selling out ideals for
Corporate intests. Stop repeating these talking points.

`

I'm sorry, I thought everyone hated the compromise Hillary and Joe Lieberman did. They call it a sell out. HEEELLLLOOOOOO?

Dog, I think the veto-proof majority is our best bet. What do we need, ten more Congresscritters? I'm working on one here in the wilds of western NY.
Jane

Well, man I finally made it through the threads. Rough night with the kitties -- fights, etc. Back to the drawing board. Things l've liked reading -- Pat's article on introversion which I enjoyed b/c I are one -- heard an instructor tell students once the difference is extroverts draw their energy from other people, introverts have their energy drained by other people. Glad to have Judy's article on the removal of the telescopes from Castel Gandolfo -- at least they still have a place. Castel Gandolfo is one of the most beautiful places I've ever been, altho it may have been the lemoncello in the cake we ate that night :~). Huckabee is scary -- are we looking at the rise of the American Taliban?

And I take issue with this:

39.

Monica Smith
Fri, 01/04/08

And my hypothesis at this point is that many Americans suffer from an inferiority complex, which they seem to have inherited from the ancestors who came here because they couldn't make a go of it at home. So they are attracted to superiority as a way to balance out their sense of inferiority. But, it never works. Because superior status is always being contested and any little defeat re-enforces the sense of inferiority.

-------

I've always thought those that came to America were very brave with a sense of adventure and needing to know what's over the next hill -- not b/c they couldn't make it at home. It's the reason I've always felt a little sorry for friends who have never left the southeast to know the way of life in another part of the country or world. I've always been a little proud of whatever ancestors of mine (at least great-great-grands) who ventured across the ocean from Scotland and Ireland.

=============

AND FINALLY!!!! WUFT FM classical music trivia question for this Friday -- don't look it up -- answer tomorrow.

Which wife of Henry VIII did Donizetti write an opera about?

I forgot -- it's 4:42 PM ET Gatorland.

Huckabee is a populist promising change and add his vote to the Edwards total and it is the biggest current political wave.

when the golden horde descended from the steppes the great khan let people that were conquered keep their religion after submission and tribute

the descendent that adopted Islam set the current borders for the tensions of the sub-continent

where might a marriage of military and religion lead in America?

Obama got the "change" vote in the Democratic cacuses.

where might a marriage of military and religion lead in America?

Look no farther than where the NeoCons and NeoDems have already led. 

Dog, I think the veto-proof majority is our best bet. What do we need, ten more Congresscritters?

Considering that 25 Dem senators regularly vote with the Repos, 35 is what you'll actually need. 

How many times last night did Olbermann try to cover for Clinton by saying over and over  "well, among Democrats it was only 31-29, it was the independants that pushed him up!"  Even Matthews got sick of it and said it did not matter.  Olbermann is such a Clinton hack.  He actually got upset when Fineman said a torch had been passed and she was the "old" candidate and he was the new candidate for change.  He jumped immediately to her defense.  You have to wonder what is going on there.

And that 5 percent Charles worries about, like Joe Lieberman voting with the Democrats 95 percent of the time. That 5 percent is the most important votes of all.

Yes. It's the ones that count where we are betrayed again and again. 

How many times last night did Olbermann try to cover for Clinton

Never even noticed it. Sometimes we see just what we're already looking for. 

Huckabee is a minion of the off-Wall Street financiers.  Rockefeller connections me thinks.  Lucky that Winthrop Jr., his first lieutenant governor died yound unexpectedly. Now most of the media won't mention it at all.  The modern day Rockefellers are all low key.  Just look at Jay in West Virginia.

36.  Religion was invented as a way to control people without having to use physical force, which tends to be resisted.  Religion ought to be an alternative to military force. The problem is that religion innoculates people to earthly direction.  That is, they take their marching orders from a spiritual entity and become resistant to their earthly rulers and, lo and behold, we're right back to military force.

Think of it  like this:

If I follow the ten commandments, then the cop down the street will leave me alone.

But, the cop down the street is bored and wants to give orders.

I resist because I'm already obeying the law, so he shoots. 

And so it goes. 

New thread ........

33.  fine, take issue.  but, if you talk to the people left behind, they'll tell you the people they sent to America or Australia just didn't fit in.  Of course, we know that the Europeans who settled Australia were mostly convicts.  The ones that came to North America were prisoners of conscience.  

Bottom line=Europe didn't want them. 

I see some folks are still bothered by the compromise thing.
Compromise is not selling out but it is both sides bending a little to get things done.
In a near parity Senate, if both sides are intractable then nothing gets done.
The trouble is Repubs don't bargain forcing Dems to move - if they want anything passed while they are in control.
So we get these absurd budget deals to float the war because Repubs know Bush will bully Dems into submitting.
Equally galling is Dems never used their minority power to stop the Bush excesses.
Dems are sounding more and more like the stale jokes about the French Military...
The ones where a rifle used by the French Army in both WWs is being auctioned off. Never fired but dropped twice.
That sounds like the Dem Senate.

46

My family came to America for a better life. I also take exception to your inference that they, along with the others, were not wanted.

That's just ignorant.

Collaboration is much better than compromise. With compromise, one side always feels like they are not getting their needs met. Win win is always best.

Business 101 :)

Compromise is not selling out but it is both sides bending a little to get things done

Where have you been for the last 16 years? Republicans don't compromise. They obstruct until Democrats capitulate or collaborate.

Collaboration is much better than compromise.

Collaboration with the GOP is like doing so with the Germans in occupied France. It's always on their terms or not at all. And with too many DCDems it's simply a matter of being bribed by the same corporate interests. 

LOL...those poor Germans. Always being used as an example.

New thread

50,
That is the point of the rest of my spiel.
Gees.

52..
Win..Win is not very realistic unless somethings are exchanged.
Buyer...Seller.
When compteting, there is no collaboration only conflict.
So when both sides want to do something and parts are opposed by the other side then a compromise is necessary.
In other words, both sides need to loose a little.
In the Senate, there is no compromise because Repubs know Dems will give up.

That is the point of the rest of my spiel.

The first of your spiel seems to be saying Dems should compromise. 

Sorry,
For a compromise to work, both sides have to give a little.
Repubs don't give so Dems surrender...
Becoming a bunch of surrender monkeys..