?

Log in

No account? Create an account
TEAM LIBERALISM! [entries|friends|calendar]
TEAM LIBERALISM!

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

[22 Jan 2006|10:47am]

ogt4ever
here are some website that some of you might be interested in...

http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/

http://www.awolbush.com/

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

http://www.whitehouse.org/

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/
post comment

[17 Jan 2006|07:56pm]

ogt4ever
i have to say it cuz it needs to be said. we need a message for the people if we gonna shift things our way this coming election, we need to show why they should choose democrats, & not just why they should not choose republicans. in 94, the republicans had the contract with america, now in 06, we need something we can say to the people, something that will make them think they should choose us & not just because the other guys are not that great. if anyone has any suggestions for a message that can appeal to masses & let the public know where we stand, here is how to contact the Democratic National Committee -

Mailing Address:

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Main Phone Number:

202-863-8000
(For questions about contributions, please call 877-336-7200)

E-Mail: the way to e-mail is on this web page - http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
post comment

Torture! [07 Nov 2005|05:14pm]

fasthands26
Unfortunately, a few of the key players in TEAM LIBERALISM! have retired from livejournal, and by "retired" I mean continued their journals in another place that's harder to find and isn't any better than livejournal, but that's another issue for another day. I think it's time for TEAM LIBERALISM! to come out of the woodwork, so in following peregrin's lead, I will also bring up an important issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html

Now let me get this straight: in today's press briefing, Bush made it clear that America "does not torture", yet he is lobbying against a congressional bill that would ban torture. If you don't torture, then why do you care about this bill so much, huh? HUH!? If our current tactics do not qualify as "torture", then there's no reason to worry about this bill.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that Bush wants to condone actions against prisoners that none of us will know about. Nobody knows who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, and obviously John Q. Public can't just drop by and see how things are going there. Personally, I am sickened over the act of torture, enough to the point where I'd rather people not experience excruciating pain at the cost of the location of some military supply base for insurgents. The fact of the matter is that people who really have nothing to say would eventually be forced to lie just so that they'd stop being hurt, and I can imagine the interrogators wouldn't be too happy to see that they'd been lied to.

There's a reason why people who have lived through torture, like John McCain for instance, are such strong advocates for banning torture. McCain, who is either one of the authors or the sole author of the proposed legislation that would ban torture, was a victim of torture as a POW in Vietnam for several years...why do you think he's so passionate about this? Also, may I direct your attention to a quote from the Bible, a book that is apparently really important to Bush:

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets."
-Matthew 7:12

Something tells me that if anyone ever sent 50,000 volts through Bush's body, he'd remember this golden rule and might think twice about his stance on torture.
3 comments|post comment

GO DEMS!! [02 Nov 2005|04:28am]

peregrin
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session Tuesday to pressure the Republican majority into completing an investigation of the intelligence underpinning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Democrats demanded that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

The probe would be a follow-up to the July 2004 Intelligence Committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

The Senate reopened about two hours later, after members agreed to appoint a bipartisan group of senators to assess the progress of the "Phase 2" probe, the office of Majority Leader Bill Frist said.
1 comment|post comment

Che [11 May 2005|02:52pm]

ex_vajra657
I want everyone to know that I write this as a liberal and proud Democrat.

I was sitting in class today when one of my fellow students walked in wearing a Che Gueverra t-shirt and he sat down in front of this girl and she asked him if he had seen "The Motorcycle Diaries" yet and he nodded that he had.

I keep political opinions to myself and I don't look down on people for having different political opinions, however I don't think a lot of people have an understanding of who Che Gueverra really was. I have seen "The Motorcycle Diaries" and I've read a lot of Che's own personal works as well as studied a lot about him during high school history class. Let me just say that "The Motorcycle Diaries" is a very romantic look into his life. And it's also not a very good period in his life to base his revolution on.

The diaries were his awakening to things he had not seen before like Buddha. He had seen poverty on his trip up through Western South America and he had met a lot of people that suffered in poverty. A lot of people who had been taken advantage of, people that suffered from disease and people that were in bad shape due to economics and government that the United States did have their part in helping to install.

As Che began to become upset and frustrated over his cause to help the poor he took up a revolution. And he even stated to many of his colleagues when he first started that a country cannot be taken without arms. He executed people, he supported the extreme and harsh actions of the Soviet Union, he supported Mao Tse Tung, he supported the invasion of Tibet, he supported Cuba's ideas of obtaining missles, it never ended with what madness he supported. He also called for the execution of a young boy who stole food because he was hungry, and if Che was all for the starving people and so forth why would he execute a young child that is poor that was stealing food becuase he was hungry?

He also pretty much made a statement once that he admired people who kill without mercy. And people who fuel their hatred for the right reasons.

When I see a Che Gueverra shirt on someone my age or younger, I really have hope that people will someday know the truth that America simply has a love affair with Che and a dream that he was all for the working man and people who couldn't fight for themselves. He was a psychotic Robin Hood, and to those college kids who don't understand; "he stopped being Anakin Skywalker and joined the dark side." A revolution that Che started is the same one that Gandhi started, one of noble means and Che by all means could have avoided the insanity however he did not believe in non-violence and took up an extremeist view point.

Revolutions like Che's are not the answer and ask yourself this if you are Pro-Che.

-Do you value religion?

-Do you value the right to speak as you feel?

-Do you believe in Democracy?

Answer yes to any of them? You are pretty much one of Che's worst enemies. He made people denounce Democracy, not disagree with him, and hated religion. Che Gueverra's face may resemble Jesus Christ, however he was not a saint. Nor was he a man of noble action. Also, what kind of Communist wears a rolex? And what kind of Communists print his face on t-shirts, posters, flags, and banners for personal capitalist gain?

The one thing I have always been amazed with when I debate with friends about Che is when they say "LOOK AT THE FREE MEDICAL CARE AND EDUCATION THAT CUBA HAS!" And I simply say that it's medical care they need because the Cuban police are famous for beating on their citizens, starving their citizens and that it would help to have that if your government did that to you and they should pay for it. Along with the fact that in Cuban schools they get sent to be brainwashed and hate other nations.
6 comments|post comment

[03 Mar 2005|04:14pm]
dirtyminds
The following organizations provide me with a few minutes entertainment and a lifetime of motivation to spread some education.

http://www.cfactcampus.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=1&idarticle=313

Let it be known that I do not support violence either.
2 comments|post comment

He He Hee... [12 Feb 2005|08:32pm]
septemberraven
I think ya'll might like these icons...

Political Time!

7 comments|post comment

TEAM LIBERALISM! needs a new topic! [31 Jan 2005|03:44pm]

agentjohnny
From Merriam-Webster:

Patriotism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

Nationalism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups


From President Bush's radio address, 01/29/05
"This election is also important for America. Our nation has always been more secure when freedom is on the march. As hope and freedom spread, the appeal of terror and hate will fade. And there is not a democratic nation in our world that threatens the security of the United States. The best way to ensure the success of democracy is through the advance of democracy."

Is Bush a patriot or a nationalist?



Maybe this is a "left-wing dictionary," out of touch with main-stream America's values?
post comment

Women in the draft [25 Jan 2005|05:50pm]

fasthands26
Not much has been going on with TEAM LIBERALISM! lately, so I thought I'd try to get our political juices flowing again. I offer you the following article:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2151

To put it simply, the Third Infantry Division in Georgia has decided to ignore the rule that female soldiers should not be put on the ground with front-line combat troops. In other words, they want women to fight the war in Iraq right next to the men.

My opinion: it's a ridiculous idea. There's no reason to do it. I agree with the article: if there's a shortage of troops, the military should tell us instead of deploying women to Iraq without our knowledge.

When I say that the idea is ridiculous, I don't mean to speak ill of women at all, or to say that women can't do a man's job or anything like that. We haven't put women on the front lines in the past, so why should we now?

Thoughts?
4 comments|post comment

[24 Jan 2005|01:02pm]
dirtyminds
[ mood | awake ]

Don't believe the media's inaugural hype. See for yourselves.Collapse )

post comment

Yay! [25 Dec 2004|12:19pm]
septemberraven
[ mood | cheerful ]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Christ is born. :P

post comment

You already may know this... [19 Dec 2004|01:59am]
dirtyminds
[ mood | annoyed ]

Americans are such ignorant bastards.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=amRg3O8daYc8&refer=us

I would be interested to see the breakdown of this "poll."

I am ashamed and appalled by this article and that's why I'm getting on the bus to protest this Jan 20th! If you are in Madison WI, I suggest you join me. If you are not I suggest you join me in DC then.

5 comments|post comment

[14 Dec 2004|09:33pm]

peregrin
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration's portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper.

...... gee, i think some of us already knew that, and have known it since before our illegal invasion of iraq. good job conservatives. now get off your morally superior fat asses and sign up for the reserves ... at least then i could respect you, i may not agree with you, but at least you are committed to your beliefs not just in theory or loud pompous rhetoric. and if you can't go, then send your kids .... soldiers die every day over there, if you supported this catastrophe then at least have the courage to stand with them.
1 comment|post comment

Good Times! [12 Dec 2004|09:09pm]
septemberraven
[ mood | horny ]

This person (xpresiveamiable) wins the BEST ICON AWARD!

Here's the icon...

</a>

4 comments|post comment

Economy [08 Dec 2004|05:18pm]

orioleredskin
I know less about the economy than most things, but I do know that the US dollar is its weakest ever against the Euro. Interestingly enough, this is not bad for the administration because it actually means the debt is relatively less. Of course, those who we owe are not happy, and the European Commission is considering intervention on the US dollar's continuing collapse.

Also, my last class of college ever ruled because we ate falaffel and talked with journalist extraordinaire Seymour Hersh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh). Probably the most intersting thing he said, and something related to this economy heading, is that the US economy is currently at essentially the same place Brazil was when it collapsed. Bad news. Looks like the trickle down theory sucks ass (which it does)

Personally, I don't mind if the US suffers a bit if the world in general improves. But just letting the economy fall to crap is not going to help the world improve. It's gonna mean that all as young folk are screwed, as this article I stole from dirtyminds journal tells us http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-33.htm

Dear Republicans and fiscal conservatives, your economic strategy is bullshit.
9 comments|post comment

[08 Dec 2004|03:00pm]
dirtyminds
My roommate sent me the link to this article which I found to be somewhat insightful. Many of you already be well aware of the issue, but it's nice to re-remind ourselves until people actually give a damn.

Women 'bearing the brunt of war'
post comment

ratings and "morality" [06 Dec 2004|09:20pm]

goodyspeedy
This is from the philosophy community, but it's interesting so we'll bring it here for TEAM LIBERALISM! to tackle.

In speech class today, I heard two speeches that both prompted the same reaction. One was on stricter enforcement of video game laws to ensure underage kids can't buy M-rated games, and another was increasing the age requirement on R-rated movies so underage kids won't be exposed to violence and sex. We've been around this bush several times - you can jack up age requirements, enforce stricter punishments, whatever you'd like, but in these cases, it all comes down to the parents making the right decisions in censoring what their children see. I saw my first R-rated movie at 4, as did my friend giving the speech on movies.

My question, then, is this: Does the government have a right and/or obligation to "fill in" for parents by enacting ever-stricter content laws? Broader: Is it in its "job description" to be a moral guardian?

I have expressed my deep anti-censorship (well not "cencorship" but you know what I mean when you have to be 17 to see an R rated movie) feelings, but the "moral guardian" business is wider than just this.

I mean, there are things like theft and murder and other badness that are moral from a point of view, but it's universal knowledge, and just plain common sense to make these things illegal, whereas other "moral" issues are really none of the government's business, things more like gay marriage and religion and such. Then there are things that are fuzzier from different points of view, such as abortion (not my pov), drinking, marijuana, etc. you can think of many examples I'm sure.

Anyways, let's get more intellectual than broomball for a moment :) What are some of your ideas regarding the government and so-called morality? Thoughts please!
10 comments|post comment

[06 Dec 2004|10:48pm]
dirtyminds
I try but I still cannot understand this organization.

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/home.html
4 comments|post comment

BROOMBALL! [06 Dec 2004|08:00pm]

goodyspeedy
Inspired by early taunts (from Paal) about the greatness of the U of M Republican softballers and from the recent political (drunken) dodgeball tourney here on campus, and my burning desire to get back on the ice, I propose a TEAM LIBERALISM! vs. Sucky Republicans and Other People broomball match!!! I suppose anywhere in Minneapolis would do, any time during break, though I'm personally only familiar with Richfield park rinks, and I don't know about schedules for other schools... but how bout it? We'd cream those suckers and have a splendid time of it!
7 comments|post comment

Patriotism [05 Dec 2004|11:23pm]

orioleredskin
First, I'm not sure my teamliberalism page is working because I can only see up to November 12 and I'm sure there were posts after that.

Second, I just wanted to put this quote that Arun made awares to me and I have adhered to for a while now:
"I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world." - Eugene V. Debs

I really dislike nationalism and patriotism and I really don't like to think of myself as primarily American. Perhaps the patheticness of American foreign policy has helped lead me to this conclusion, but really just reading through history courses on Central Asia and Africa has made me realize that patriotically loving one's country has extreme problems in that it puts humanity in general second to country.

I realize that the nation-state is going to be the main form of societal organization for a while now. And loving one's country is not a problem if you understand that humanity needs to come first and America, if organized correctly, could greatly benefit humanity.

So basically what I'm saying is that there needs to be a change in the rhetoric. A change so that we are not pledging allegiance to a nation, but to humanity.
10 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]