We do not elect leaders in the US

[nadinbrzezinski]

but we elect representatives

This is a point that Hartman makes regularly

We are the government

So, time we become those leaders and DEMAND our representatives, yes OUR REPRESENTATIVES do what we demand off them

These demands include:

Abiding by the US Constittuion, they took an oath, so BITE ME

That means impeachment

And that means bringing the troops home

It also means national health care NOW, single payer

A RATIONAL National Defense

Encouraging national industry and a growth economy

Once again, THEY WORK FOR US.

On edit, we have the power... its called the franchise... assembly and other peaceful means...

[UGADUer]

1. That's extremely true, and the primary-cult-of-personality pushed on us by the media forgets that

I'm tired of this Clinton-Obama sparring going on. What about the PEOPLE and what we want? This is a sick excuse for a democratic process.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You know and the media knows this too

they have not been right in their coronation efforts

She may lead in national polls but given the electoral history of primaries in the US the media (and Ms Clinton, and possibly Obama) are in for a surprise.

Early leaders tend not to take it...

[UGADUer]

7. You know I talked to chris matthews about this once

I was at the Carter anniversary conference and I talked to him about Dennis and it seemed he was mostly interested in talking about the personal characteristics of candidates ("Kids like Obama" "Romney's Mormonism") and not really who's best for the country. That's the devolution of politics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. He is part of the problem, we need to figure a way to go around media

frames, that is what we need to do

Ain't easy, but each generation has its challanges

[Just-plain-Kathy]

14. I guess that's why primaries are being pushed up. ...n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I suspect that is one of the reasons

the other... quite frankly states are getting tired of Iowa and NH deciding the game

My view, the primary should be a national election and screw their schedules and sensibilities

But that is another discusion

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Oh and welcome to DU

:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

2. You got it, Nad.

Political leaders are expected to lead other politicians, but we're supposed to lead all of 'em.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It's just that we need to convince another what 100 million

people to do waht is right for the country and get off their duffs... I don't expect everybody to get this though

[UGADUer]

9. You have to have institutions that foster this kind of thing

Most people know deep down that this is a sham, but they aren't organized to do anything about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. We are the leaders

you are politically aware.

Most folks don't know the first thing of their actual role in the system

Hell, the voting numbers in this contry are shameful

Start by saying high to neighbors, things like that

[Whisp]

47. learned (taught) helplessness. nt

[cali]

5. wah, wah, wah

*stamp foot* rinse and repeat.

These little rants on DU are meaningless. They aren't activism.

Furthermore, I voted for my reps in Congress to use their judgement, not to follow orders. And though I don't agree with them on every issue, rather than throwing a tantrum, I contact them with my concerns.

And, what do you say to situations like Ben Nelson who has a 70+ percent approval rating in NE? Looks like THE PEOPLE feel he's representing them.

[UGADUer]

19. Approval ratings don't mean people approve of the policies of the person

They usually correlate to two things:

- He/she is better than the opposition party person running against

- The strength of the economy

After all almost all of Reagan's policies were extremely unpopular but his "approval rating" generally was positive, near the mean for Presidents.

There's a big body of work about this topic in political science; check it out.

[cali]

23. Common sense comes into play here.

Senator Leahy, here in Vermont, has about the same approval rating as Nelson in Nebraska. Now I'll grant you I don't know much about how informed Nebraskans are, but the Vermont electorate is very savvy. I can guarantee you that Vermonters like what Leahy stands for, and how he votes. And one thing I do know is that Vermont has a generally liberal electorate and NE has a generally conservative one.

In addition, reps, even Senators are much closer to the electorate they represent than presidents. And clearly all of Reagan's policies- particularly his foreign policy weren't upopular.

[UGADUer]

25. The data's all there

just look it up; maybe u'll see the disconnect; vermont is a special state

[tkmorris]

21. What the hell?

What is with your animosity towards this post? He makes some good points, things that really needed to be said because so many seem to forget them all too easily. Even if he was completely wrong however I cannot understand the nastiness of your response. Is civility too much to ask?

[cali]

26. self-delete

because it's really not worth it.

[tkmorris]

33. If you have some kind of personal problem with OP

I REALLY recommend that you find some other way to handle it other than jumping on a perfectly reasonable thread and being juvenile. If there is something occurring at some other board you are having an issue with perhaps you should deal with it there.

DU has enough little civil wars going on without inducing any more.

[cali]

35. My main problem with the OP

is that I find her posts generally lacking in any kind of intellectual rigor, and pretentious as hell. And this fits the former if not the latter category.

As for other boards, I don't post on boards that serve as a platform to gossip and slander DUers.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Pot Meet Kettle

The Professor

[txaslftist]

57. You don't know to whom you are posting, I guess.

Threadstalking, personal insults, and running to the moderators and animosity are the trademarks of this poster.

[bonito]

37. Good advice here

Take a break, we all need it now and then. Peace

[Virginia Dare]

53. People here sometimes forget..

that freepers are entitled to representation too...:rofl:

[DS1]

8. I think Clinton was an excellent leader, in the worst of positions a leader could inherit

He had a little war in Somalia that Bush41 started, but he got us out of it. It was ugly, but it's done. Compared to the status quo we now have in Iraq, it was almost painless. He was up against a shithole of a GOP Senate and House, and he still got stuff done. Granted, not all of the stuff he got done worked out right, but at least he tried. His approach wasn't about his 'relevancy' and 'dick-swinging'. He swung his dick towards a mouth and got off, instead of swinging his dick in the face of society and progress, ala Bush.

I reject your premise.

edit: furthermore, as much as I respect you as a DUer, I think you are confusing terminology. We elect representatives to further our own goals. If those representatives fail to do so, that's not equal to "we don't elect leaders".

[marmar]

12. When did the OP mention Clinton's dick?

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. In an inthread discusion on how Ms Clinton may be in

for a surprise due to US Electoral hstory

Them horses who lead this early in the campaign tend not to go all the way...

History, a damn cute thing

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. In an inthread discusion on how Ms Clinton may be in

for a surprise due to US Electoral hstory

Them horses who lead this early in the campaign tend not to go all the way...

History, a damn cute thing

[DS1]

17. She didn't.

Clearly, I did. It was a tongue in cheek statement

oh no, I did it again. Perhaps I'll take that part out, just in case another person fails to see it as it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. That we are the government

Jeffferson thoguht so... so did Madison

[UGADUer]

20. The bombings and sanctions against Iraq were nihilistic madness and

NAFTA and welfare reform have their own ghosts. These were his initiatives, not the opposition's that he caved into.

[Pawel K]

22. Clinton's policies also led to the death of 500,000 Iraq children

so I don't think he was working for us, I know damn sure he wasnt working for me. It is time we get someone in there that has a different world view, I am sick of people dying in our name. You should be too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. You mean a non imprerial leader

that should take us back to Washington's warnings about entangling alliances....

[Pawel K]

28. Partly.

Though I certainly feel very strongly about them working for us once again, and not for big corporations. Instead of spending $500 billion a year on wars we can spend a chunk of that money on taking care of us. There aren't too many people currently running that are willing to do this, why people here support more of the same drives me nuts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Well at this point it is the ever so popular looking at

which one will do best for your economic interests

But I agree, we need to get rid of corporate personhood... among a very long list of items

I think my list of things that can be left alone for the moment is very short compared to the needs that need to change

[DS1]

27. I didn't say he was perfect by Pawel K's standards

so, no, of course he wasn't. He made his mistakes, but all in all, I think he did a good job.

[Pawel K]

29. "Mistake" is such a shitty term to describe the delibirate death of 500,000 children in your name

but like they say, arrogance is bliss (unless you happen to be one of those children).

[DS1]

31. Okay, nipple-licking Peter Griffin

I'll play your straw-man game. Tell me exactly how this happened.

Then tell me how many babies die in third-world countries Bush shut off medical aid to, and while you're at it, please compare those two numbers.

[Pawel K]

36. Are you nuts?

You are trying to justify the deliberate killing of half a million children because people die in third world countries all the time anyway? What the fuck is wrong with you? Can you please wake up from your delusion? I have no clue why its so easy for people like you to dismiss these atrocities because the guy that committed them had a (D) after his name.

Like I said, arrogance is bliss. You are demonstrating this perfectly right now.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp

Sanctions wreaked havoc on the Iraqi people, in part because the Pentagon intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water-treatment systems during the first U.S.-Iraq war:

- January 22, 1991, Defense Intelligence Agency report titled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities” noted:

Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline.... Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.... Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.

.........

George Washington University professor Thomas Nagy, who marshaled the preceding reports in an analysis in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, concluded, The United States knew it had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

.........

In 1995, a team of doctors (including a representative of the Harvard School of Public Health) visited Iraq under the auspices of the UN Food and Agricultural Organization to examine the nutritional status and mortality rates of young children in Baghdad. They concluded that the sanctions had resulted in the deaths of 567,000 children in the previous five years. (Most subsequent studies implicitly concluded that this study sharply overestimated the mortality toll in the first years of the sanctions.)

.........

CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl relied on this estimate in 1996 when she asked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright:

"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright answered: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. "

Albright’s words echoed like thunder through the Arab world in the following years.

The infant/young-child mortality rate in Iraq rose from 50 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 133 per 1,000 in 2001 (meaning that more than 13 percent of Iraqi children die before the age of five). Iraq had by far the sharpest rise in infant/young-child mortality of any nation in the world during that period, according to UNICEF. Professor Garfield declared,

Sanctions seem to have bolstered Saddam’s domestic popularity. He uses the sanctions to demonize the West and to rally support for his leadership; they have been a convenient scapegoat for internal problems. The rations system he has established in response to the sanctions has tightened his control of Iraqi citizens’ everyday lives, making them totally dependent on the government for mere survival and less likely to challenge his authority for fear of starvation.

.....

The International Committee of the Red Cross warned in a report in December 1999 that the oil-for-food program “has not halted the collapse of the health system and the deterioration of water supplies, which together pose one of the gravest threats to the health and well-being of the civilian population.” Seventy members of Congress sent a letter to President Clinton in early 2000 denouncing the sanctions as “infanticide masquerading as policy.”

They continued these sanctions throughout the Clinton administration knowing it would kill thousands of children. Even saying it was worth it when confronted with the 500,000 figure. I doubt this will change anything for you, you are a sheep with a (D) after you name. Enjoy your happy life of arrogance.

[DS1]

39. So you'd rather he not listen to the UN and be more like Bush?

[Pawel K]

41. What was this reply in regards to?

[DS1]

42. My user mistake, it was in reply to "Are you fucking nuts"

please adjust

if you have any difficulty adjusting, please chalk it up to my being fucking nuts

thank you

[Pawel K]

43. Did I say fucking nuts?

I dont think I did, but since you justified the killing of innocent children because innocent children die out there in the world anyway "fucking nuts" would probably have been appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

On August 6, 1990 the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi sanctions were linked to removal of Weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687.<1>.

The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

This was pointed out in the article that I posted, this tells me you didn't even have the time to read through it. Can't be bothered with such trivial matters, huh?

In addition, all the bombs that dropped on these power plants which in turn destoryed those water treatment plants didn't come from the UN, they came from the US with the brilliant leadership of the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations.

But you still haven't changed your mind on Clinton have you? No matter how many facts are thrown in your face, no matter how many people died because of his policies, I'm curious as to what other excuses you can possibly come up with to justify the deliberate killing of 500,000 children.

[DS1]

44. You're getting into semantics now

and wasting both our times with your bloviating. I did read the links, I do understand the damage the sanctions created, but you don't care to debate, you just want to rub shit in everyone's faces.

I'm done with you, you're wasting my time.


Good day.

[Pawel K]

55. Arrogance is bliss

I love how you people will support who you support even if you can't defend them, reminds me of bushbots pre2004. Great cop out by flipping the death of 500,000 children around to saying I'm the asshole, have a nice day.

[TahitiNut]

32. Go, Nad!

:dunce: :silly: :evilgrin:


:rofl:

[MLFerrell]

34. This touches on a personal corollary of mine:

"We don't elect leaders in this country, we elect politicians. Leaders know how to lead. All a politician knows how to do is win elections."

Ergo, as long as those "in charge" care more about preserving their personal power than leading a nation, we're eternally doomed to extremely poor "leadership".

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. That's a good one

I like it

[DS1]

40. This is the kind of cynicism that is destroying DU

It doesn't matter what a politician stands for anymore, because he or she must be standing for it for their own personal gain.

[MLFerrell]

48. Actions speak louder than words.

There are THREE honest members of Congress that I know of:

Dennis Kucinich.

Ron Paul.

Bernie Sanders.

Those three are leaders. They ALWAYS vote on principles, and not how it's going to "play in Peoria". I'd very much like to include Robert Byrd on that list, but I wouldn't be honest with myself if I did.

"It doesn't matter what a politician stands for anymore..."

Aside from the above-mentioned exceptions, they all stand for the same thing: Getting re-elected and preserving their own power and influence.

[defendandprotect]

45. These reps usually have offices in our towns . . .

Think it might help to change the focus from Washington offices to the local offices --- ???

Also, I noticed my Repug rep sent me an e-mail saying he was going to be at the office in my town this week sometime.

I've wanted to try to do more local stuff, but can't get anyone to do it with me!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. that is what I am thinking

spread the joy as it were

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Been Sayin' That For Years

I don't need to be led anywhere. I just want these guys to act like representatives of THE PEOPLE! They're not in charge! WE ARE!
The Professor

[Sneaky Sailor]

50. I was with you up to National Health Care

Is that covered under "provide for the general welfare"?

Is that your resoning?

[LWolf]

52. Excellent point,

and one that I'm happy to recommend and :kick:.

[The2ndWheel]

54. And if the demands aren't met?

Are we going to stop working for more than a symbolic day in November? Are we going to stop paying taxes? Are we just going to elect more people to "represent" us, because obviously we are the definition of insane?

If we have to demand that they do something, how do they represent us? Speaking of which, how can one person represent an average of 3 million or 600,000-700,000 people at one time?

"a growth economy"

So we're no longer worried about the habitat we have to live in? The more any economy grows, the larger the impact will be.

[Odin2005]

56. I have always been somewhat annoyed about the cult of personality that has developed around...

...the Presidency, it does nothing but encourage presidents to act more dictatorial. It's one of the reasons I prefer a parliamentary system. A big thing that bothers me is that people obsess over minutiae on where the presidential candidates are on the issues when it's Congress that makes the laws, it is more unfortunate evidence that the average American has come to view the presidency as having more power then it constitutionally has or ought to have. Is there any wonder The Misadministration acts so dictatorially when people expect the president to have more power then he/she is constitutionally allowed to have?

[txaslftist]

58. I recommended your post, but would quibble over one thing...

... single payer health care.

I don't know under which section of the constitution the federal government would have the authority to do this, first of all; secondly, although our current system is definitely flawed and malignant, I don't think government has either the wisdom, the freedom from corruption or the will to actually make it better; and finally, the current f'd up system is largely the result of a lot of government intervention in the health care industry.

As for the rest of your post, right on.

[Sneaky Sailor]

59. True nuff

:)