Hello! Jack and Jill Politics is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I guess it depends on how one defines 'whim'. I don't think anyone is supposed to be discarded on a whim, in theory, though the practice is obviously the opposite. If a woman is not...
- Why get married? There's more to marriage than love. How many women back in the day got married, not because of a man himself, but because of the promise of having a baby of their own? Or...
- My opinion only, flamesuit on: There's infidelity, and there's open marriages. A spouse, male or female, who looks the other way while their significant other is getting some on the side is...
- I believe there are lots of people who want to be married but do not want to be without sex or romance- which is the case for MANY marriages (kids, stress, money, unresolved relationship baggage.)...
- If you know the answer dont ask the question.
Jack and Jill Politics
A black bourgeois perspective on U.S. politics
I know…you’re enjoying this long weekend, and you should.
So, in between the BBQ’s, Spades, Bid Whist, and Summer Movies…
Drop those links to your fellow JJPers. Share the knowledge. Begin those debates.
And, have a peaceful day.
Remember those who have fought, often unheralded, to protect the ... Continue reading »
So, in between the BBQ’s, Spades, Bid Whist, and Summer Movies…
Drop those links to your fellow JJPers. Share the knowledge. Begin those debates.
And, have a peaceful day.
Remember those who have fought, often unheralded, to protect the ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Obama/Webb 08?
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fox-news-has-to-sack-liz-trotta
1 year ago
-Ringgold
1 year ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/fox-pundit-wishes-for-oba_b_103500.html#postComment
1 year ago
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fox-news-has-to-sack-liz-trotta
1 year ago
Recently, there seem to be widening divisions between civilians and the military. Those who continue to serve have less in common with those who don't, and this gap widens with every generation.
Me? My family had been in either the Navy or Marines since the Revolutionary War. I never had any pressure at all to join. In fact, my mother was vehemently against military service. But still, I went. The gap is widening between my mother's generation and mine.
So why did I serve? Why does a family continually have children that decide to serve in the military?
I think we can definitely dismiss the case for riches and wealth. Some liberals would like to believe that we were "Born to Kill" (think Full Metal Jacket). That's not it either. And while I definitely took advantage of the college benefits, that's not the motivation.
Almost all of us military folks bleed red, white and blue. We tear up when the Star Spangled Banner is played because we imagine Francis Scott Key captured and desparate, hoping to see his beloved flag flying. We tell people at the ball park to take their hats off during the national anthem.
We defend our country no matter who is in the White House. We suffer when the leadership is poor and we thrive when the leader ship is good.
But how does a family serve for generations?
The reason is that there is a feeling of obligation for the benefit of living in a country built on ideas. That we understand that freedom is not for free. That somebody has to defend it. And we are actually willing to do it.
Some of us may feel morally superior because of it. However, I feel that my service connects me to my country, my ancestors, and my heroes and that it gives me a better understanding of the price of liberty. There IS an underlying obligation on us, but it’s not to our families or country, but to ourselves to see if living the life defending freedom is worth it. I tell you it is.
One last thing. Those of us in the Warrior Caste feel more akin to those with the same connections. You can see this for yourself when two of us, who’ve never met before, are instantly brothers or sisters after two minutes of conversation (or blogging). It’s not understood. It’s not implied. It is felt…it is felt down in the deepest reaches of your gut, your soul.
The Warrior Caste serves for generations because it has deep faith. Faith that your leaders won’t send you to the far corners of the earth to do wrong. Faith that your fellow citizens will care for your well-being, keeping you equipped and fed. Faith that our Founding Fathers were right in that fighting for freedom is worth dying for. Faith in your fellow soldiers.
We hope to live up to the expectations of our parents and ancestors and, most of all, of you.
1 year ago
You have my sincere appreciation.
1 year ago
p.s. We read you everyday.
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
1 year ago
Where no rockets fly nor bullets wing
Our broken brothers let us bring
To the Mansions of the Lord
No more bleeding, no more fight
No prayers pleading through the night
Just divine embrace, eternal light
In the Mansions of the Lord.
Where no mothers cry and no children weep
We will stand and guard though the angels sleep
Through the ages safely keep
The Mansions of the Lord.
Happy Memorial Day, all. Remember those who not only gave their lives to defend our freedom, but those who gave their lives to help others realize their dream of freedom.
1 year ago
May 24, 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has moved on from Indiana, leaving behind $55,000 in unpaid bills for campaign events at Indiana University.
The debts are for appearances made by Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, during March and April leading up to Indiana's May 6 primary.
Barack Obama's campaign, meanwhile, has already paid the $108,142 it owed IU for two Assembly Hall events — a rally featuring the Illinois senator and an Obama-sponsored concert by Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds.
The university charged the campaigns for sound equipment, security and other needs for their events, but school officials knew there was a risk that the bills would not be paid, IU spokesman Larry MacIntyre said.
"We are very happy that we were able to have both Democratic candidates here," MacIntyre said. "We feel it was a great thing for the students, and we don't have any regrets. We'd like to get paid, and certainly we believe that ultimately, we will be paid."
The Clinton campaign has received two invoices from IU for the events and expected to pay both during the next few weeks, spokesman Isaac Baker said yesterday.
"We try to pay our invoices as they come in within about a month," Baker said. "We very much appreciate the university's hospitality and being willing to host us."
In spending reports filed this week, Clinton listed $19.5 million in debts, including $10 million she has lent her campaign.
Clinton and Obama both spent millions of dollars on television commercials, campaign offices and events around Indiana for more than a month before the primary, which Clinton won.
The Clinton campaign report listed several smaller debts around the state through the end of April, including about $900 to Kim Brand's company for setting up the computers at Clinton's state headquarters in downtown Indianapolis.
Brand said he was paid after making repeated telephone calls to the campaign.
"We didn't want to let it get too far out because then memories fade, relationships lapse," he said.
MacIntyre said he was not sure what IU would do to pursue the Clinton debt if the campaign did not pay it.
"She owes $20 million. I suspect we're probably not going to get paid in a timely manner," he said. "But what a great opportunity for students. They had … a chance to be up close and personal with both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton."
Source: AP
This is from www.againsthillary.com</br>
1 year ago
May 9, 2008
By Greg Gordon
Hillary Rodham Clinton's decision to lend her presidential campaign $6.4 million from assets she holds jointly with her husband is rekindling questions about millions of dollars that special interests have paid Bill Clinton for speeches and other work since he left the White House.
In tapping some of that cash, "the Clintons have effectively bypassed campaign finance reform in a manner that's ingenious — using Bill Clinton effectively as a front for the fundraising," said Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political science professor.
Since 2001, the ex-president has spoken roughly 250 times on tours worldwide that brought him more than $40 million.
The sponsors have included investment banks that later suffered billions of dollars in losses in the subprime mortgage debacle and now have a big stake in regulatory changes; an insurance group with an interest in any overhaul of the health care system; a group that favors the reunification of Taiwan with mainland China; a Colombian business development group that backs a free-trade agreement; and more than two dozen Jewish groups, synagogues and museums.
Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson dismissed concerns, saying, "There are no conflicts of interest, and every dollar either of (the Clintons) have made is all publicly available."
However, said Jacobs, the director of the university's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, "There appear to be a number of prominent, wealthy corporations in the financial services sector, the health care sector and others that stand to gain considerably from the election of Hillary Clinton as president."
When Hillary Clinton lent her campaign $5 million in early February, she made it clear that those funds came from her own money. Her pre-tax earnings have totaled about $11 million from her salary as a New York senator and from advances and royalties for her book Living History.
But her last-ditch decision to tap joint funds to remain financially competitive with rival Barack Obama exposes her husband's financial dealings over the last seven years to greater scrutiny.
On Wednesday, when Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson disclosed that she'd lent her campaign $6.4 million more since April 11, he said that the funds came from their shared assets. Wolfson said that Clinton is legally entitled to use up to 50 percent of their jointly held assets for her campaign.
Source: Mcclatchy-Tribune
1 year ago
One particular thing got me thinking:
Obama's attacks on Clinton have not been any the less effective for their soft edges. From January on, he has used her attacks to argue that her immersion in Rovian politics -- her willingness, as he's said at his sharpest, to "say anything to get elected" and "calculate and poll-test" positions -- has distorted her judgment and limited her power to reform the political process, as he has pledged to do. In a sense, that's a character attack, as Geoff Garin charged in an April 25 op-ed. But it's one that resonates, as Hillary has demonstrated these limitations over and over. Obama has simply added accents to the self-portrait she's drawn.
I agree and I feel like maybe there should be different or additional categories beyond "character attack" versus "policy difference attack" (or whatever the best ways is to describe those existing categories).
I see a huge difference, for example, between Clinton calling Senator Obama elitist and out of touch, and Senator Obama making the argument described in the quote above. The diference goes back to integrity for me, a particular kind of integrity: speaking with action and using words descriptively.
The contrast to this integrity is leading with words and relying on rhetoric to try to create and control perception.
Ms. Hillary persistently tries to create reality through rhetoric. We have seen many many examples of this practice during this campaign.
In this one relatively small example mentioned in that article, she jumped on one statement of Senator Obama and proceeded to employ overblown rhetoric about his "bitter" statement (calling him elitist and out of touch). She did not base her statements on actual real visible patterns of action/behavior from Senator Obama. She took words and built a little "rhetoric castle" in the sky, balancing on one statement -- not a very firm foundation.
In contrast, Senator Obama's argument quoted above is actually a description based on an actual visible pattern of Ms. Hillary's persistent actions and behaviors. These actions and behaviors he is describing are visible and available for the scrutiny of anyone who wants to assess what Senator Obama is saying for whether or not it is true. This is a grounded, strong foundation and is in keeping with how Senator Obama does things overall in my observations.
I have seen on several occasions that Senator Obama encourages people to look to his actions, his visible life, read his books , gather real information on who he is and where he's coming from. What I take from this is that he is grounded enough in what he is saying and doing to encourage other people to do our own assessment of what he's about and what he does.
In contrast, Ms. Hillary has been increasingly furiously engaged in trying to interpret herself and everyone/everything else -- to tell people what to think and how to think about it, to call on people to trust her vision of reality, to not rely on anything else, and certainly not to develop and exercise our own abilities to figure out what is going on based on our own experiences and observations.
Ironically, she has attacked his campaign for being built on words, when in fact that's not really the situation at all if you look at what actually goes on.
Anyway -- I have been watching these dynamics very closely throughout the campaign because this kind of thing is exactly at the center of how I assess what is going on and where my loyalties are.
This analysis is closely related to what I am thinking right now about this, though I very strongly suspect that Senator Obama would not be in favor of the analysis in this excerpt or the whole book):
Hypocrisy as a Way of Life
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
The former president said Sunday that the media had unfairly attacked his wife since the Iowa caucuses, repeating an often-used charge that press coverage had made him feel as though he were living in a "fun house."
Dear Mr. Bill: You do live in a fun house. Oh hell yes you do. But trust me, Mr. "Depends On What the Definition of IS, Is" ... it's not built or maintained by press coverage. You and your wife do that just fine all by yourselves. In fact, I would not so much call it a "fun house" as a Fun Mansion with substantial acerage and some sort of large lake on the grounds.
1 year ago
This brotha is ONLY 49 delegates away from securing the nomination.
Here's the big question:
Does the Party MOVE THE GOALINE on Saturday by re-instating any or all of the FL and MI delegates????
I'll probably be really pissed over the weekend if they change that 2026 number.
But take heart once again, because it seems as though the super delegates will flood towards Obama on June 4 to END this process. At least that's what President Jimmy Carter says.
All other reports I've seen say that Hillary is getting nowhere with the super delegates.
So let's hope for all of this to END on June 4. . . .
That's ONLY 9 days away!
1 year ago
It will be key that the Democratic Party hold some type of major event or press conference to show that they are united behind Obama.
Every Democrat. . . every surrogate is going to have to make it absolutely clear that Obama's victory is LEGITIMATE.
I don't care what Hillary says at that point. It's gonna be important for the party to get behind Obama on June 4th.
There are a lot of pundits/surrogates who have tried to remain neutral even now (I'm looking at people like Rachel Maddow). They absolutely have to come forward and say that this is Obama's time . . . he won . . . it's legitimate. . . let's move on.
That's on them. They can make Hillary absolutely irrelevant come next Wednesday.
Obama played by the rules. . . he's been respectful of his opponents. . . he's been the leading voice in taking on John McCain and the Republicans (while Hillary whines and throws her neverending pity-party).
Obama won fair and sqare. Let's move on to the general.
1 year ago
1 year ago
From what I've heard, that "blame the Republicans" argument is a bunch of bs because the state Dems didn't put up much of a fight.
And you're absolutely right. . . anyone that's complaining now could have easily complained LAST YEAR. They didn't. They're arguments are purely political.
A 50/50 split is all they should get (I actually think the DNC should stick to its original ruling of zero delegates). Neither candidate should gain an advantage just because those two states couldn't get their acts together.
The proper thing to do would be to let the nominee (Obama) decide to seat the delegates once the primaries are over.
As far as I can tell, a 50/50 split wouldn't effect the outcome . . . meaning, the magic number might change, but the distance to the goaline would remain the same.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
(Yes, that is the way they spell it...) First and only Black paratrooper unit. 555th Parachute Infantry.
They are lesser known than the Buffalo Soldiers or the Tuskegee Airmen. But they were some bad brothers!
555th Parachute Infantry - The Triple Nickles
P.S. Someone please help the brothas out with their website.
Why is it so big on the screen?