Well this vote should go down as a day of shame for the Democrats. On Tuesday, the House voted to approve another $106 billion dollars for the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and increasingly Pakistan). Also, the bill included a massive initiative to give the International Monetary Fund billions more in U.S. taxpayer funds. Democrats now own the war Bush and his cronies started. Only 30 Democrats voted against the war funding when it mattered. And these 30 did so in the face of significant threats to their political future from the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That means that only 30 out of 256 Democrats are willing to stand up to the war and the current president presiding over it. Their names are listed here: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, Lloyd Doggett, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Michael Honda, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Massa, Jim McGovern, Michael Michaud, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Jackie Speier, John Tierney, Nikki Tsongas, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Peter Welch, and Lynn Woolsey. Also, Republican Ron Paul voted against the bill Here are the Democrats who voted against war funding when it didn't count and yes (on Tuesday) when it did--and when refusing to do so might have affected them personally: Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner. These legislators should be called and asked why they voted for war funding they claimed to oppose last month. It is a pathetic symbol of just how bankrupt the Congressional Democratic leadership is when it comes to U.S. foreign policy that Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest are trying to use funding for the IMF to convince other Democrats to support war funding. The IMF has been a destabilizing force in many countries across the globe through its measures and structural adjustment schemes. Remember, it was the policies of the IMF and its cohorts at the World Bank and World Trade Organizations that sparked global uprisings in the 1990s. To paraphrase Bush, it was one of those days when we truly discover who is for war and who is against it.
well makes me think about 2 years ago the Dems did the same thing--supported supplemental war funds that totaled $100 billion. But whats the difference now? Makes me also recall our VP supported unconditional funding for the war back in 02.
I suspect it's not the global trillion dollar military industrial complex. Gotta put food on the table for the kids! Well, not all the kids of course. Not the ones that die because of war and the terrorism that war creates. America is the number 1 terrorist in the world.
In the early 1970s, when Americans were marching in the streets in protest against the Vietnam war, and people were still getting drafted, the Democratic Congress refused to fund futher action in SE Asia. It's been 35 years since and they are still painted as the 'anti-national defense party'. It simply isn't going to happen again.
No kidding...it's so sad what's happening. I had high hopes for Obama but everyday they seem to go down. Props to the liberals who voted against war!
4th post Dickie. Shame: The 'Anti-War' Democrats Who Sold Out By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Coastal Post Online Article July, 2009 Its really not ok to copy and paste other peoples exact words, stick in a few of your own, change paragraph structure and pawn them off as your own. so friggen weak.
How the fuck did i steal something written in july 09 when i posted in june 09? Agains, people on the internet talk about the same things, especially when those things should be talked about. Chill the fuck out.
Shame: The 'Anti-War' Democrats Who Sold Out By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted June 17, 2009. HE had it republished after he wrote the orignal, I initially linked to a copy of a reprint. http://www.alternet.org/world/140715/shame:_the_'anti-war'_democrats_who_sold_out_/
The problem is you are taking them as your own the minute you change a few words and report without a site or source. Your defense about "things should be talked about" isnt even close. You go from trying to defend the date, which was wrong, to talking about issues, but you clearly copy and paste other peoples work , change a few things and post them with no site or source? You've even went as far as dumbing down the language in one of your posts! But it was the same exact as the authors original.
Do you think he is doing it because he is claiming the work as his own, or it just looks like that because of the technicality of not posting a link?
Yes, he c&p. He also changed a few words, played with paragraph structure and gave no credit to the original articles. Why would you change a few words and not cite? It doesn't just look like plagiarism. I can see c&p names or a list, but selective paragraphs and change a few words? No cite, source, credit? Im not buying it. Its wrong! Like I mentioned in one of the other 4 posts he did this same thing, even some of the words are "dumbed down" from the original authors.
Good job finding that Sensimil. It really isn't cool to steal someones work and post it as your own. But back to the original topic: These dems in office aren't much better than the neocons before them. Obama said he wants peace but hes just pullin the same usual war mongering that every president does. Pretty disappointed in this. I hope Obama supporters are outraged by this..
I just don't believe that he thought he was claiming the work as his own. He may have dumbed it down a bit because he might want everybody to participate in the discussion. I would believe it was wrong if he was only taking selective paragraphs to prove his point and leave out other stuff, but other than that, politics is a discussion thing.
^^Exactley bagseed There would not have been as much discussion if i posted a link to a liberal blogger. No? Its for discussion dude chill out. Fuck, i didnt know i needed a bibliography of every thing ive read and posted on the internet for the internet police. Let me guess sensimil, you download songs for free off the internt..