Comments on: CNN Political Ticker, AM http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/ All politics, all the time Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:07:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: msnz911, Washington DC http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/#comment-65550 msnz911, Washington DC Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:38:09 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/#comment-65550 Obama, who graduated from Columbia and decided to go back to Chicago to organize poor people around issues, has approached his campaign as an opportunity to build a movement — a movement based in communities around issues that matter. Why are so many people responding to Obama? Because he is straightforward, and is clearly about a lot more than his own ego. Unlike John Edwards, Obama hasn’t had to “move to the left” or discover that he was wrong about Iraq. Obama didn’t discover unions and the rift between rich and poor after losing an election in 2004. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama has been consistently solid on the key issues — and unlike Hillary, we know, if Obama is elected, where he will be on the issues. (Do we really need a second Clinton presidency, framed by lots of progressive hype, which delivers so little in the way of progressive legislation, and so much to Wall St?) And, perhaps most important, Obama’s followers have the potential — with the support of their candidate — to build a new progressive movement in the U.S. and a new reform movement in the Democratic Party. Obama speaks about his candidacy, and even his possible election as president, as part of the launching of a new movement to change America. The president of the United States encouraging a movement for progressive social change? Now there’s a thought! There are two ways that we can look at next year’s election. We can look at it as an opportunity to stop the endless mudslide of domestic and foreign disasters that have darkened our horizons during the Bush years. This would be no minor accomplishment. But, next year, we can try to do more. We can look to elect a president who not only looks different, but who thinks and acts differently, a progressive champion who boldly reasserts government’s role as protector and uplifter of the people at home, and who can reinvent American foreign policy as a force for peace, not coercive power, across the globe. We need a candidate, and a president, who understands that he or she cannot succeed unless the people are standing alongside him — ahead of the powerbrokers and money guys — ready to help enforce their collective will. There is no question that Barack Obama is such a candidate. Obama, who graduated from Columbia and decided to go back to Chicago to organize poor people around issues, has approached his campaign as an opportunity to build a movement — a movement based in communities around issues that matter.
Why are so many people responding to Obama? Because he is straightforward, and is clearly about a lot more than his own ego. Unlike John Edwards, Obama hasn’t had to “move to the left” or discover that he was wrong about Iraq. Obama didn’t discover unions and the rift between rich and poor after losing an election in 2004.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama has been consistently solid on the key issues — and unlike Hillary, we know, if Obama is elected, where he will be on the issues. (Do we really need a second Clinton presidency, framed by lots of progressive hype, which delivers so little in the way of progressive legislation, and so much to Wall St?) And, perhaps most important, Obama’s followers have the potential — with the support of their candidate — to build a new progressive movement in the U.S. and a new reform movement in the Democratic Party. Obama speaks about his candidacy, and even his possible election as president, as part of the launching of a new movement to change America. The president of the United States encouraging a movement for progressive social change? Now there’s a thought!
There are two ways that we can look at next year’s election. We can look at it as an opportunity to stop the endless mudslide of domestic and foreign disasters that have darkened our horizons during the Bush years. This would be no minor accomplishment. But, next year, we can try to do more. We can look to elect a president who not only looks different, but who thinks and acts differently, a progressive champion who boldly reasserts government’s role as protector and uplifter of the people at home, and who can reinvent American foreign policy as a force for peace, not coercive power, across the globe.
We need a candidate, and a president, who understands that he or she cannot succeed unless the people are standing alongside him — ahead of the powerbrokers and money guys — ready to help enforce their collective will. There is no question that Barack Obama is such a candidate.

]]> By: Carson, Fremont, California http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/#comment-65546 Carson, Fremont, California Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:25:10 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/#comment-65546 I believe the same group controls both major political parties. A group of bankers and businessmen had been trying to monopolize the banking industry. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was elected President with the aid of a bribe from them. They formed the Federal Reserve and are like our personal credit cards are for us except they are the credit card for the government. Well that and they pay no taxes that I know of. Anyway they’re at about at their 100-year anniversary. They have grown to proportions that I believe they now control many of the politicians of the world. Not only can they buy politicians of both parties here, and control our borders, they can also control much of our spending. Have you ever wondered why our once great nation has been spending money the way it does. It is sort of like how it would be to have a hundred wives on your credit cards and all of them dating those that own the credit card companies. They make money when they lend money. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson I believe the same group controls both major political parties.

A group of bankers and businessmen had been trying to monopolize the banking industry. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was elected President with the aid of a bribe from them.

They formed the Federal Reserve and are like our personal credit cards are for us except they are the credit card for the government. Well that and they pay no taxes that I know of. Anyway they’re at about at their 100-year anniversary.

They have grown to proportions that I believe they now control many of the politicians of the world. Not only can they buy politicians of both parties here, and control our borders, they can also control much of our spending.

Have you ever wondered why our once great nation has been spending money the way it does. It is sort of like how it would be to have a hundred wives on your credit cards and all of them dating those that own the credit card companies.

They make money when they lend money.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

-Woodrow Wilson

]]> By: Ed,Ellenville,New York http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/#comment-65519 Ed,Ellenville,New York Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:00:14 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/cnn-political-ticker-am-62/#comment-65519 Gates is a subordinate to congress,and as such has no say in our political policy.Does bush also take advice from Barney? Gates is a subordinate to congress,and as such has no say in our political policy.Does bush also take advice from Barney?

]]>