2008 DNC: Clinton ‘No Way, No How, No McCain’

2008 DNC: Clinton ‘No Way, No How, No McCain’

I thought this was a great speech!!!

VNN Thread-Feminism and Evolution

I found this on VNN and of course I wanted to post it here in my journal and comment.

Troy Alexander
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London Zoo
Posts: 773
Feminism and evolution

——————————————————————————–

I was reading in the newspaper about how it is a tactic of female chimpanzees to stop other females from breeding.

by extrapolation could it be argued that feminsim is a tactic of ugly pissed of females i.e. Jewesses, Hillary Clinton to promote feminism to stop more evolutionary fit females (educated to a university level) from having more and better kids than them.

this is a new idea. My idea. and i think it can fit in perfectly with WN ideology. Could someone more articultate than me build on this: someone inform kevin macdonald- he can cite vnn as a reference
————————————————————-

First you notice how he refers to women as chimpanzees who want to stop other women from having babies. I know Jeff would tell me women aren’t human beings and didn’t have any rights. Sexism is very much alive in 2008.

You notice how they think any strong, smart, independent woman like Hilary Clinton is made out to be the destroyer of families because she wants women to be able to make choices.

cillian
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cruachán Aigle
Posts: 1,455

——————————————————————————–

So feminists are actually chimpanzees. Brilliant!
—————————————————–

Troy Alexander
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London Zoo
Posts: 773

——————————————————————————–

evolved chimpanzees. They chimp out but use means other than violence. To hinder a woman who possess attributes making them more likely to get better males and have better children, they propogate feminist ideology.
——————————————————————-

You make it sound like an evil thing that women are joining to work together so that all women will have certain rights. Is it wrong for a woman to choose what path she wants to take? It is about choice and being able to decide for ourselves and not be told what we will do by a man who is in total control of every aspect of our life.

Yes, we are evil because we don’t want to be totally at the mercy of a man who doesn’t think women are human beings with no rights. That it is his duty to discipline his wife and can do whatever he wants because he has absolute power over her.

I admire Hilary Clinton and I supported her when she ran for President because I thought she was someone who would fight for the rights of women to not have to endure a life of slavery because she had no say in the decisions that were being made about her and her children.

cillian
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cruachán Aigle
Posts: 1,455

——————————————————————————–

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Alexander
evolved chimpanzees. They chimp out but use means other than violence. To hinder a woman who possess attributes making them more likely to get better males and have better children, they propogate feminist ideology.
———–
hmm, it is always the ugliest cuntiest women that are into it, you might be on to something
————————————————————

Curious
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 149

——————————————————————————–

I know of a woman at college, that was both ‘pro-choice’, and wanted to have ten children. She struck me as somewhat jewy in her looks.
————————————————————–

Gee this woman must be a jew because she is pro choice and wanted to have 10 children. What does a jewish woman look like that is different than a Catholic women?

I wanted to have a large family myself. I think that was a common dream for many women. Maybe they didn’t want as many kids, but most women who are boomers wanted to have a nice husband who loved them and who they loved, children, the dog, cat, and in my case horse, a nice house and living in a place that was a great place to raise kids. At the same time they wanted to be able to have a career.

It just seems to many White Nationalists and notice I didn’t say all that you want to turn the clock back to the time when women couldn’t vote, were the property of her husband, and had no outside interest but domestic chores.

Women have rights now. They have the right to vote. As much as you hate that fact, women will have a voice in who the next President will be. We will continue to have women who hold political power in this country and we will continue to fight for all women around the world to have a choice about their lives and not being forced to do things that they do not want to do because they are living under the total control of a man who has total power over them and their children.

The Rise and Rise of Exxon’s Take From America

Published on Monday, May 5, 2008 by The Women’s International Perspective

It’s the Profits Stupid!
The Rise and Rise of Exxon’s Take From America

by Nomi Prins
How sad. Exxon Mobil, the universe’s largest publicly traded company, which also happens to be enjoying some of its biggest profits ever thanks to the almost doubled price of oil during the past year, didn’t quite live up to Wall Street expectations this week. In fact, its stock fell nearly 4% the day it announced its first quarter of 2008 earnings.

Unfortunately, this does not make the pain at the pump pulsing through the nation any more bearable. Apparently, Exxon could have made more profit, had it not chosen to hold back further gas price hikes. Instead, earnings in its refining business (which converts crude oil to gallons of useable gas) weren’t as strong as it had wanted. Yes, that’s right — Exxon would have made even more money had they passed more pain onto the public. They were just being “nice.” Right.

As people contemplate paying $4 per gallon for gas, not to mention the havoc those higher oil prices wreak on their home fuel costs, Exxon isn’t really skimming less off the top in order to be a Team America player. Nor does Exxon feel the same pain from these high oil prices that ordinary citizens feel while driving to school, work, the grocery store or childcare. The $21.7 million paycheck (18% more than last year) of Exxon’s CEO, Rex Tillerson, certainly covers a whole lot of gas.

No, that Exxon didn’t quite live up to Wall Street expectations is just pre-election spin, ensuring that whichever candidate gets into the Oval Office doesn’t try to take some of their profits away by taxing them. (Not that they’d have to worry if John McCain wins the election.)

Exxon posted an almost $11 billion profit for the first quarter of 2008 on a staggering $117 billion in total revenue, which was up from $87.2 billion in revenue last year (or, more than a third of the projected 2008 $311 billion US deficit.) Part of Exxon’s windfall still came from higher gas prices, which on average, rose about 30% over the year, as oil prices rose from $60 to $100 at the end of the last quarter it reported.

Plus, Exxon’s earnings were up 17% versus the same quarter last year, pulling in the second-highest quarterly earnings in US history for any corporation. To put it in perspective, Exxon’s last earnings for all of 2007 were a record $40.6 billion, which puts them in the running, if oil prices stay where they are, to come in at about 10% above that for 2008.

So, is Exxon joining the “go-green, don’t be dependent on foreign oil” mantras popular in this election cycle? Are they spending some of that hard-earned cash on alternative energy sources? Not so much. Instead it was busy investing in itself, buying back $31.8 billion of its own stock out of that $40.6 billion profit, compared with just $3.3 billion in US capital investment. Says Tyson Slocum, Energy Director at Public Citizen, “This discrepancy certainly shows that motorists aren’t getting any bank for their buck out of it.”

And Exxon wasn’t the only one struggling to beat their previous record profits. Oil companies around the world were feeling the love from record crude oil prices. Firms like BP and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, despite flat production over the quarter, posted stellar, even better than expected first quarter earnings, up 64% and 25% in profit respectively. ConocoPhillips’ first-quarter earnings increased 17% to $4.1 billion.

On Friday, Chevron added to the oil company euphoria, posting a net income rise of 37% for the first quarter of 2008, and revenues of $65 billion, up from $33 billion, though also citing more limited refining profits (the ‘downstream’ part of their business — upstream is oil production). Like Exxon, Chevron also chose to use its profits to buy its own stock — underscoring that the best investment for oil companies is — oil companies. The firm bought back $2 billion of its own stock during the first quarter.

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton appropriately commented, “There is something seriously wrong with our economy when Exxon’s record $11 billion in quarterly profits are seen as a disappointment by Wall Street. But on Main Street, middle-class families are facing devastating choices every day between buying groceries and filling up their gas tanks to get to work.”

Unfortunately, Clinton’s understanding didn’t translate into a fully useful policy suggestion. Both Clinton and John McCain suggested helping American drivers with a “gas-tax holiday,” in which the gas price at the pump would be temporarily exempt from certain federal taxes, providing consumers with an 18.4 cent-a-gallon price break. Clinton would make up for the money the federal budget would lose by not collecting that gas tax, by taking it from the current tax breaks oil companies already enjoy. McCain didn’t really elaborate on what he’d cut money from to compensate, but suggested the tax holiday would allow families to pay for school costs — an odd attempt at cause and effect logic (which would work only if school costs were a fraction of what they really are).

The gas-tax holiday proposal would only work if gas companies were not allowed to pocket that 18.4 cent difference by increasing pump prices anyway, to somewhere just below an 18.4 cent rise — which would leave the total price almost the same. Somehow, trusting and gas companies don’t quite fit together. Indeed according to Slocum, “This is pointless pandering. There’s no guarantee prices will actually fall 18.4 cents, plus the Highway Trust Fund that the tax promotes is in need of the money, particularly for mass transit investment (which would be energy-friendly).”

Senator Barack Obama didn’t back the proposed tax holiday, nor did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but both Obama and Clinton (in her Economic Blueprint) have proposed a windfall-profits tax before. In Obama’s case, he would impose a tax on each barrel of oil priced over $80, which his camp says would extract three times the $50 billion, 10-year windfall-profits tax that Clinton proposes collecting from oil companies.

Both are a start, but too tame. The reality is that gas companies can and do profit disproportionately from higher oil prices, limiting their need, without any enforced regulation or tax consequences, to either find alternative energy sources or support means to reduce energy dependency.

What’s needed is a major extraction from the pocket books of the oil giants that will steer them toward alternative energy. They must be brought to participate, by limiting their profits, in funding solutions for energy conservation — like more money for mass transit, rebates for motorists to buy super fuel-efficient cars, incentives for families to install solar panels, and other means of reducing oil dependency. Meanwhile, there are many Americans who simply have to drive to work, care for their kids or parents, get food, or get educated. Some must make their living in driving and transport. Others find that rents or homes near their work are unaffordable making a commute necessary. Providing more transportation alternatives with windfall profit money would be both cost and energy effective.

All this must be taken into account when determining practical energy policy, and in order to achieve cost benefits to more Americans now, and in the future.

Nomi Prins is a journalist and Senior Fellow at Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization. She is the author of Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of America and Jacked: How “Conservatives” are Picking your Pocket (whether you voted for them or not). Other People’s Money, a devastating exposé into corporate corruption, political collusion and Wall Street deception was chosen as a Best Book of 2004 by The Economist, Barron’s and The Library Journal.

Copyright © 2008 The Women’s International Perspective

Thank You Rush

I do understand why Joan Walsh is upset.  I know I could have responded on Salon, but these days I like to respond to posts and articles I read on the internet in my journal.  This journal is my journal of thoughts.

I too think it is terrible that any woman who has worked hard politically over the years would be called that name.  Hilary Clinton and all women should be shown respect.  I don’t understand people today who would defend someone calling woman that name. I know people think I am stupid and maybe I am, because I don’t understand why we are allowing our Democratic primary to become an ugly nasty race. I don’t think anyone will win if we keep this up.

I know people will say I am an evil feminazi who because I am a woman am going to stand up and defend another woman.  I am not defending Hilary because she is a woman, but because I believe it is the right thing to do.Hilary is not perfect nor is any other woman or person for that matter.  We do not agree 100% on the issues.  She is pro choice and I am a pro- life Democrat because I follow the teachings of my Church.  Every Sunday in Mass we pray for the unborn that their rights may be protected.  I think that there has to be a better way and that abortion should not be used as birth control.  I believe that partical birth abortion is muder of an infant.  Even though we do not agree on this issue she is still a fellow Democrat who for many years has fought to make a difference for good in this country.  As a woman I am proud of what she has been able to accomplish over the years.

I admire how she is kept her marriage together even during the tough times.  In the world today to see a marriage stay together is a wonderful thing. Both the Clintons should be applauded that they have managed to keep their marriage together. In this day of easy divorce it is nice to see one marriage that has not ended in divorce.

She has been a good mother and raised her daughter to be smart, and who I believe will also make her mark in the world and the world will be a better place because of her efforts. She has grown to be an accomplished young woman.

Hilary also helps out her elderly mother and that too tells me Hilary is a person of character.

Sexism does exist in this country.  I know that first hand as do many women.  Anyone who would use those words to describe Hilary Clinton or any other professional woman I think is out of line.

I don’t listen to Rush’s show, but it sound like even Rush agrees with Joan and I.

I am not saying that one has to love Hilary Clinton, but don’t call her that name that I won’t repeat, but talk about the reasons that you don’t like her or that you disagree with her on.

As a Democrat I am sick of the way this primary has been going.  Both sides of have wrong.  Their actions are leading to bitterness in both camps.

This country is at a crossroads.  In order to win we as Democrats need to find a way to come together in unity.  Yes we have issues that we need to discuss and I hope that we can, but this name calling on both sides has got to stop.  The lying on both sides has got to stop.

I know that I am not the only Democrat whose is in conflict on how they will vote this year.  My head is saying that I need to support my party no matter how I feel about the Candidate actions, but my heart is saying to write in the person who I feel should be at the helm of this country.  To me that person is Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Is a older Democratic statesman who we all respect going to have to step in and like a father reign his children in and say ENOUGH of this bad Behavior?

Are we going to have a repeat of 1968 and because of our infighting allow another Nixon to win the White House.  I am not saying that John McCain is another Nixon, but if we don’t get our act together and start acting kind and respectful toward each other we will be giving the Republicans a chance to defeat us this fall, because one large part of our party will stay home, vote Ralph Nader or like me write in the man in their heart who they think should be at the helm of this country.

It is a sad day when two Democratic women have to thank Rush for standing up and defending Hilary Clinton.  So like Joan Walsh I say thank you Rush for standing up for what is right.

Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!

A very angry Obama-fan reader sent me a transcript of Rush Limbaugh quoting something I said on Campbell Brown’s CNN show last week. What a nice gesture, on both their parts! Rush has quoted me before, but I don’t think I’ve ever been happier to have what I said reach a wider audience. Here’s what he quoted:

WALSH:

Thanks, Rush! I really appreciate your getting that point of view out to more people. Sadly, you’ve got a bigger audience than I do at Salon, at least temporarily. But I’m thrilled to have that statement reach a wider audience. Because, yes, it’s just true.

I see the flaws readers pointed out in the Essence/CNN poll on America’s readiness for a black or a woman president that I wrote about Friday. And I certainly don’t mean to diminish Barack Obama by talking about this; as I’ve written many times, he’s run a better campaign to date than Clinton has, and he’s an extraordinary, admirable politician. But I thought many of the letters about my post helped prove the point that sexism is more pervasive, and far less conscious, than racism is in the Democratic primary this year. So did the letters on Carol Lloyd’s Broadsheet post about Randi Rhodes calling Hillary Clinton a “fucking whore.” I honestly never thought I’d see the day when Salon readers, including some I respect, would defend that kind of attack on a female politician, as people did in that letters thread. (I started to type “female Democrat” and stopped myself. I honestly never expected to see Salon readers defend people calling female Republicans “fucking whores,” either.)

If you disagree, and you’d like to argue on behalf of calling female politicians “fucking whores,” please marshal your best arguments in my comments section. But also, if you feel that way, please feel free to stop reading Salon. I passionately want to grow our audience, and I’m proud to have tripled it in the three years I’ve been editor-in-chief. But truly, some readers we can can live without. There must be someplace where people who want to call female leaders “fucking whores” will feel welcomed and at home, but this isn’t it.

 

— Joan Walsh