Fwd: Re: Barack
roger satterthwaite
--- roger satterthwaite <satt...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:56:40 -0800 (PST)
> From: roger satterthwaite <satt...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Barack
> To: Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com>,
> Brian Simboli <br...@lehigh.edu>
>
> The past few days I had been thinking about
> tossing out a one word e-mail to stir things
> up:
>
> OBAMA!
>
> So Steve beat me to the punch.
>
> And Clinton (H.R.) would considerably improve
> my
> country and the world over the tragedy of the
> past eight years.
>
> Even McCain.
>
> Best set of choices since..... um .... ever, in
> my lifetime.
>
> How many days until that idiot is out of the
> White House? Christ, how much more damage can
> be
> done this year....?
>
> I feel like a very long and sleepless night is
> ending.
>
> Rog
> --- Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Brian, I forgot to take you off the
> list.
> > I feel like this election
> > and Obama are so much more than policy issue
> --
> > it's about uniting and
> > working together.
> >
> > Once again, sorry I didn't take you off the
> > list.
> >
> > Jeannie
> >
> > On Feb 2, 2008 7:09 AM, Brian Simboli
> > <br...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > There are two issues that have vexed me for
> > years. One is the pro-life
> > > issue, about which I've already written
> > enough for this audience. The
> > > second is the prospect of use of WMD, to
> use
> > the current parlance.
> > >
> > > Until the Democratic Party suspends its
> > policy of systematically
> > > excluding pro-lifers, and moreover making
> the
> > pro-choice agenda core to
> > > their platform, they don't get my vote.
> Some
> > might ask--what about the
> > > other issue? Given that almost all the
> really
> > major wars of the 20th
> > > century were under the auspices of
> Democratic
> > Party admnistrations, I
> > > think it is a sretch that this party is any
> > more likely to work toward
> > > eliminating stockpiles of WMD than the
> > Republican Party. There remain
> > > the economic issues, which I'm working
> > through now (am actually doing a
> > > masters and writing about economics), which
> > are far more complex.
> > >
> > > I removed myself from the Westtown list
> > because I made a good-faith
> > > effort to clarify my views, to no obvious
> > effect. Life is too busy now
> > > (time with wife and junior, writing,
> studying
> > in the early morning hours
> > > on top of a full time job) to be party to
> > email debates about the
> > > upcoming (inevitably divisive) parties.
> > >
> > > It is indeed an unusual irony that the
> people
> > of my acquaintance who
> > > describe themselvs as pro-choicers or for
> > that matter are supporters of
> > > the Democratic Party have adopted the very
> > same attitudes of Orthodoxy
> > > and dogmatism they often attribute to their
> > opponents. Even more so, in
> > > my personal experience. I cannot recount
> how
> > many times my interlocutors
> > > on these issues, usually at parties, have
> at
> > the very outset assumed
> > > either that no rational person would
> disagree
> > with them or subjected me
> > > to sermons on their views.
> > >
> > > Frankly, it tires me out. I sometimes
> > (selectively) make a good-faith
> > > effort to clarify my views to people who
> > disagree but spend more time
> > > and energy on /action/.
> > >
> > > Please remove me from future correspondence
> > about political matters.
> > >
> > > Best wishes to all,
> > > Brian Simboli
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > >Check this out, from Sunday's LA Times.
> > First time
> > > >the paper has endorsed a Democrat for
> > President in 126
> > > >years. It's moving -- and I think right
> on
> > target.
> > > >
> > > >Here's hoping for long-needed change for
> our
> > country
> > > >and planet in 2008.
> > > >
> > > >love to all-
> > > >
> > > >Steve Coleman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >February 3, 2008
> > > >
> > > >Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday's
> > California
> > > >primary can mark their ballots with
> > confidence,
> > > >knowing that either candidate would make a
> > strong
> > > >nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking
> > leader and
> > > >capable president. But just because the
> > ballot
> > > >features two strong candidates does not
> mean
> > that it
> > > >is difficult to choose between them. We
> urge
> > voters to
> > > >make the most of this historic moment by
> > choosing the
> > > >Democrat most focused on steering the
> nation
> > toward
> > > >constructive change: We strongly endorse
> > Barack Obama.
> > > >
> > > >The U.S. senator from Illinois
> distinguishes
> > himself
> > > >as an inspiring leader who cuts through
> > typical
> > > >internecine campaign bickering and appeals
> > to
> > > >Americans long weary of divisive and
> > destructive
> > > >politics. He electrifies young voters, not
> > because he
> > > >is young but because he embodies the
> desire
> > to move to
> > > >the next chapter of the American story. He
> > brings with
> > > >him deep knowledge on foreign relations
> and
> > on this
> > > >nation's particular struggles with
> identity
> > and
> > > >opportunity. His flair for expression,
> both
> > in print
> > > >and on the stump, too easily leads
> observers
> > to forget
> > > >that Obama is a man not just of style but
> of
> > > >substance. He's a thoughtful student of
> the
> > > >Constitution and an experienced lawmaker
> in
> > his home
> > > >state and, for the last three years, in
> the
> > Senate.
> > > >
> > > >On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic
> > candidate,
> > > >Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York,
> are
> > a
> > > >hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull
> troops
> > from Iraq.
> > > >Both are committed to healthcare reform.
> > Both offer
> > > >candid critiques of the failed George W.
> > Bush
> > > >presidency, its blustering adventurism,
> its
> > alienating
> > > >stance toward other countries and its
> > cavalier
> > > >disregard for sacred American values such
> as
> > > >individual liberty and due process of law.
> > > >
> > > >With two candidates so closely aligned on
> > the issues,
> > > >we look to their abilities and potential
> as
> > leaders,
> > > >and their record of action in service of
> > their stated
> > > >ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public
> > servant
> > > >whose election would provide familiarity
> > and, most
> > > >important, competence in the White House,
> > when for
> > > >seven years it has been lacking. But
> > experience has
> > > >value only if it is accompanied by courage
> > and leads
> > > >to judgment.
> > > >
> > > >Nowhere was that judgment more needed than
> > in 2003,
> > > >when Congress was called upon to accept or
> > reject the
> > > >disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a
> > test and
> > > >failed, joining the stampede as Congress
> > voted to
> > > >authorize war. At last week's debate and
> in
> > previous
> > > >such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for
> > abusing the
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping