UCD Academic Senate Commends Student Body
According to a release from the UC Davis News Service, The Academic Senate’s Representative Assembly took up only one proposal on Dec. 2, voting unanimous approval of a resolution commending the student body for its civility.
With the resolution, the Davis Division further pledged to:
- Protect all students’ rights to freedom of opinion and its expression.
- Continue to stress the need for and great value of accessible and affordable high quality public university education.
- Strive to effect real changes in our policies and procedures that uphold the Principles of Community now and in the future.
- Investigate fully the use of force against students on the campus and to hold accountable those who are found responsible.
- Ensure that the administration develops, follows and enforces university policies to respond nonviolently to nonviolent protests, to secure student welfare amidst these protests and to minimize the deployment of force, and foster free expression and peaceful assembly on campus.
Chancellor Linda Katehi, who attended the meeting and joined the conversation, sympathized with faculty members and expressed concern about shrinking state support for higher education.
“It’s just a race that we are losing all the time, because as fast as we go, we cannot keep up with the pace at which the state funds are being taken away,” Chancellor Katehi said.
Indeed, as the release points out, state funding to UC Davis – on an inflation-adjusted basis – is down about 37 percent, or about $194 million annually, since 2007-08. And systemwide, annual tuition of $12,192 is nearly double what it was in 2005-06.
The Republican Dilemma
This is becoming my weekly spot to summarize the presidential campaign. With Herman Cain dropping out, right now it is looking more and more like it comes down to Mitt Romney, and now Newt Gingrich has emerged as the conservative alternative to Romney. The problem with Newt Gingrich is, not only does he have a colorful track record from the early 90s and his days as Speaker of the House, he has a remarkable tendency to be his own one-man, circular firing squad.
The problem that the Republicans face is that, while Gingrich is nuclear, Romney is opposed by the base. As Nate Silver wrote this week, “Republicans are dangerously close to having none of their candidates be acceptable to rank-and-file voters and the party establishment. It’s not clear what happens when this is the case; there is no good precedent for it. But since finding a nominee who is broadly acceptable to different party constituencies is the foremost goal of any party during its nomination process, it seems possible that Republicans might begin to look elsewhere.”
I still predict that the Republicans will keep up with their time-cherished tradition of nominating the most established candidate coming into the election and that would still be Mitt Romney. Now, in the times of changing dynamics and the 24-hour news cycle, along with the influence of Fox News, it is unclear how long that tradition will hold.
But go back to 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged President Ford. Reagan did not win in 1976, but in 1980 he held off George Bush to become the nominee. Bush then went on to become his Vice President, and the nominee in 1988, holding off Bob Dole. In 1996, Bob Dole held off challenges to win. In 2000, George W. Bush, the son of the former President, would emerge and hold off a challenge from McCain, McCain would be next in line holding off Mitt Romney. That puts Mitt Romney as the presumptive front runner. He too has had challenges, but if history holds…
Rick Perry Goes Thud
Rick Perry had his turn and now he has bottomed out. Just to be sure that his candidacy is completely dead, he has come forward with one of the worst and most shameful adds of the year, attacking gays and gays in the military.
“I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” the Governor begins.
He then finished by stating, “As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.”
One thing I feel safe in saying, is he’ll never be president. Click here to watch the video yourself.
One of the funniest things circulating this week is that Governor Perry is filmed in the video wearing a jacket that looks remarkably like the jacket that Heath Ledger wore in the 2005 film, “Brokeback Mountain,” where Mr. Ledger portrayed a gay character involved in a romance.
DA Declines to Seek Death Penalty Against Mumia Abu-Jamal
Long before Troy Davis became a cause célèbre for the anti-death penalty movement, there was Mumia Abu-Jamal, accused of killing a police officer in Philadelphia in 1981. A murder that he and many others believe he did not commit.
How long has Mumia been a pivotal, if controversial, figure? I first read his book, “Live From Death Row,” when I worked in Washington DC, prior to going to graduate school in Davis.
Mumia Abu-Jamal was arrested thirty years ago, on December 9, 1981, for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, who was on patrol when he was gunned down. A jury unanimously handed down a guilty verdict the following year, and Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death.
From the start, there were problems with the trial, that appears to have been patently unfair, and it is at least possible, if not probable, that he is innocent of the charge altogether.
After numerous hearings and appearances over the last 10 to 15 years, the US Supreme Court in October refused to hear the District Attorney’s request to reinstate the death penalty against Mr. Abu-Jamal.
Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams announced this week that he was no longer going to seek the death penalty and risk triggering another several decades worth of appeals.
“Every reviewing court has found the trial fair and the guilty verdict sound,” he said. “. . . Our best remaining option is to let Mr. Abu-Jamal die in prison.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer quotes Officer Faulkner’s widow:
“Rest assured I will now fight with every ounce of energy I have to see that Mumia Abu-Jamal receives absolutely no special treatment when he is removed from death row,” she said. “I will not stand by and see him coddled as he had been in the past, and I am heartened by the thought that he will finally be taken from the protected cloister he has been living in all these years and begin living among his own kind – the thugs and common criminals that infest our prisons.”
Supporters of Mr. Abu-Jamal, who believe steadfastly in his innocence, are encouraged but pressing for more. On the one hand, removing the death penalty in cases with significant lingering doubt only makes sense. On the other hand, it leaves a man convicted of murder that he may not have committed following a patently unfair trial and a death sentence in prison. But it does mark progress after 30 years.
Using New Vanguard Bulletin Board
A few weeks ago, the Vanguard launched its new bulletin board feature. The feature will allow for two critical things. First, it allows for the movement of off-topic posts from the comment section of articles to its own page, where the discussion can continue. Second, it will allow readers to post their own topics and comments for discussion.
The bulletin board has the potential to become another point of vital discussion in the Davis community, on a whole host of topics that otherwise would be considered off-topic.
By request, some have asked for instructions on how to use the bulletin board.
There is a lot of information on the board that makes it look far more complicated than it is.
There are links to the bulletin board on the right side of all pages, it simply says bulletin board.
Once you get to the bulletin board, there are two ways to navigate.
You can hit “index” and it will show you two options, “General Discussion” and “Suggestion Box”
If you click on one of those options, you will have a list of discussion topics that you can click on to read.
You can also click on recent topics.
That will take you directly to all recent posts, regardless of the category.
Replying to Comments
I am just going to go through some basics here.
I logged out of my account because I have a number of moderation options that the typical user does not. However, at the most basic level, hitting “reply” allows you to reply and post your own comment. Hitting “quote” will quote the content of the comment you are replying to. So in this case, if you wanted to respond to Jeff and quote him, you would hit quote. A more general comment, you would hit reply.
You can also start a new topic,either from this screen, by hitting reply or:
You can hit “new topic” at the top of your menu and do it that way.
Posting Comments
This is pretty simple but it looks complicated. You select the category. Right now we have just two categories, but we might create more later if the board gets cluttered. You type in a subject if you are starting a new “thread,” or you can leave it at default if you are replying. You don’t have to worry about a Topic icon if you do not want one.
Below that are more advanced features, including the ability to change the font and alignment. You can also use the quote feature to quote text. There is some code feature that is used for tables, and helps keep the alignment clean. If you are worried about it, don’t worry. It also helps you link to other sites, such as to ebay and video.
Strangely, it does not have an image button, and I don’t quite understand why.
However, to load an image you type [img], then the url, the [/img]. So it would be [img]http://www.url.whatever [/img]
Those are the basics. As I said, I think this can be a very dynamic enhancement to the Vanguard, once people catch on to it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree with you that in the end Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate. He’s not perfect but who ever is? One thing that is certain, it doesn’t really matter who the GOP puts up as voters will rally together to throw Obama out of office. This election is more about getting rid of Obama than the GOP candidate.
“This election is more about getting rid of Obama than the GOP candidate.”
Well it may appear that way, but watching 2004, in the end I think who the opposition is, does matter and more importantly how well they run their campaign.
Thanks for the very detailed instructions on how to use the bulletin board – extremely helpful to those of us non-techies who aren’t familiar w such things…
On the Abu-Jamal case, excepts from Wikipedia:
[quote]On December 9, 1981, in Philadelphia, close to the intersection at 13th and Locust Streets, Philadelphia Police Department officer Daniel Faulkner conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle belonging to William Cook, Abu-Jamal’s younger brother. During the traffic stop, Abu-Jamal’s taxi was parked across the street, and Abu-Jamal ran across the street towards the traffic stop. At the traffic stop, there was an exchange of fire. Both Officer Faulkner and Abu-Jamal were wounded, and Faulkner died. Police arrived on the scene and arrested Abu-Jamal, who was found in possession of a shoulder holster and a revolver, which had five spent cartridges. He was taken directly from the scene of the shooting to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital where he received treatment for his wound, the result of a shot from Faulkner.[31][/quote]
[quote]The prosecution presented four witnesses to the court. Robert Chobert, a cab driver who testified he was parked behind Faulkner, identified Abu-Jamal as the shooter.[33] Cynthia White, a prostitute, testified that Abu-Jamal emerged from a nearby parking lot and shot Faulkner.[34] Michael Scanlan, a motorist, testified that from two car lengths away, he saw a man, matching Abu-Jamal’s description, run across the street from a parking lot and shoot Faulkner.[35] Albert Magilton, a pedestrian who did not see the actual murder, testified to witnessing Faulkner pull over Cook’s car. At the point of seeing Abu-Jamal start to cross the street toward them from the parking lot, Magilton turned away and lost sight of what happened next.[36]
The prosecution also presented two witnesses who were at the hospital after the altercation. Hospital security guard Priscilla Durham and Police Officer Garry Bell testified that Abu-Jamal confessed in the hospital by saying, “I shot the motherfucker, and I hope the motherfucker dies.”[37]
A .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver, belonging to Abu-Jamal, with five spent cartridges was retrieved beside him at the scene. He was wearing a shoulder holster, and the shell casings and rifling characteristics of the weapon were consistent with bullet fragments taken from Faulkner’s body.[38] Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed, as contact with arresting police and other surfaces at the scene could have compromised the forensic value of such tests.[39][40][/quote]
The internet is replete with articles doubting the innocence of Abu-Jamal. One example from Mother Jones:
[quote]Mumia was NOT busted and framed because he was a political threat to the establishment. He was arrested because he was found, wounded, with his gun drawn and resting near his hand, a few feet from a murdered cop.[/quote]
“The internet is replete with articles doubting the innocence of Abu-Jamal.”
I don’t disagree, I don’t know that he’s innocence, I do know that there are enough doubts about his death that even the SCOTUS agreed with stripping the death penalty.
To dmg: The point I am trying to make, albeit not as articulately as I should have, is that the Abu-Jamal case is probably not a good example to use for the proposition that the death penalty should be done away with. Many of the articles suggest as much…
BY THE WAY, HAPPY 2ND BIRTHDAY (DEC. 6) TO YOUR DAUGHTER JASMINE!!! AND YES, ALL CAPS BC I AM “SHOUTING” MY GOOD WISHES FOR HER!!!
Cane and Gingrich will help make Romney a better candidate to help Obama secure his early, and much welcome, exit from political life.
The problem with Romney is that he has a hard time stirring Republican passions. Obama and the left-friendly press and media-entertainment establishment have fomented a pending firestorm of conservative anger combined with real fear that we are turning European socialist and heading toward an even greater fiscal calamity. Republicans want the kind of candidate that cannot only deftly spar with the rhetorically-gifted Obama – but can deliver a consistent punch to put him out of our country’s misery… and hopefully send the socialist, Marxists and Communists back to their cave plotting their exploitation of the next economic cycle. Gingrich has the gifts to do this, but in the end, Romney will be considered the more presidential of the two.
I agree with you that in the end Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate. He’s not perfect but who ever is? One thing that is certain, it doesn’t really matter who the GOP puts up as voters will rally together to throw Obama out of office.
I don’t see Romney beating Gingrich; but I can see Gingrich beating Gingrich.
My take is that there is a cap of about 28-30% support in the primaries/caucuses for Romney. There are three primary reasons his cap is so low.
[i]”I agree with you that in the end Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate.”[/i]
I don’t see Romney beating Gingrich; but I can see Gingrich beating Gingrich.
My take is that there is a cap of about 28-30% support in the primaries/caucuses for Romney. There are three primary reasons his cap is so low:
1. The activist energy in the GOP is the Tea Party, a collection of conservatives who came together to defeat health care mandates and otherwise to shrink government. Romney favors health care mandates. Romneycare was the basis for Obamacare. Romney simply is not fiscally conservative enough for the Tea Party*;
2. Romney is a Mormon. A large part of the evangelical base in the GOP distrusts or dislikes or avowedly hates the Mormon faith. It is also the case that Romney was actively involved with Planned Parenthood and only late in the game switched to the pro-life position of the conservative Christians;
3. Romney’s not a firebrand. He comes across as too cool, perhaps even too aloof, or too bookish or bankerish to excite most Repubicans. His elitist type persona reminds voters of Obama. The GOP wants a cowboy, not a bookkeeper.
[i]”… it doesn’t really matter who the GOP puts up as voters will rally together to throw Obama out of office.”[/i]
It is true that most voters will be focused on the economy and most will hold it against Obama if the economy is still weak in November, 2012. But Obama stands a very good chance of beating an unlikeable person like Newt or a moron like Perry or Bachmann. The American people will not throw out the known for the unknown if the latter is perceived to be unacceptable, which I think is how a mjority views Gingrich. Romney would do much better in a General Election.
*In this respect, Romney of 2012 is McCain of 2008. And McCain won the nod from the GOP. That is where the Mormon question hurts Romney, in my view.
Don, please remove my 11:40 post. And this one, too.
rusty49
” This election is more about getting rid of Obama than the GOP candidate.
At last, a statement in which we are in complete agreement. As a matter of fact, the Republicans stated top priority was to make Obama a one term president. And that was before he had had the opportunity to do anything at all. Note, top priority, defeat Obama, not create jobs, create a stronger economy, improve education, strengthen our position in the world, respect the will of the majority of American voters who elected Obama. No, top priority….defeat Obama. This is not my idea of how to strengthen America.
[i]”Republicans stated top priority was to make Obama a one term president.”[/i]
Step 1 – Get rid of the socialist president
Step 2 – Fix the economy
Step 3 – Repair the damage to the collective understanding of what America is and what it means to be a good American.
Step 2 and step 3 cannot proceed, until step 1 is complete. Obama has made that very clear. Republicans do not hate Obama as a person, they hate what he stands for, they hate what he says, they hate what he does and does not do. If Obama wins, the next four years will be a bigger mess for the country as the GOP works to stall and prevent any policy taking us closer to European socialism and farther away from the principles of Americanism.
Obama is not a socialist, Jeff. Even though you keep saying it.
People who support Obama are good Americans. Your “Step 3” is shameful.
Jeff
So, I am all too aware that Obama is not a socialist since it “takes one to know one” and I am. Is it your position that that makes me a “bad American” or a “bad person” or brainwashed, even though I arrived at my position well before entering college where all those left leaning professors could have brain washed me ?
However, I do agree with you that if he wins, and the GOP again “works to stall and prevent” as they have done for the past four years conveniently ignoring that his political victory just may because more voters want to go in that direction America will likely be worse off than today. However, it my opinion, it will still be far better off than if any of the current Republican candidates win. And with all due respect, I do not share your belief that my mind is polluted or “messed up”.
Thanks for the bulletin board instructions. It’ll help. What’s the meaning of an “off-topic column”? It looks like ‘three- or four-topic column” of on-topic discussions. Most of them seem fully worthy of their own columns from your viewpoint and the benefit of uninterrupted comment from your readers.
[quote][i]”However, I do agree with you that if he wins, and the GOP again “works to stall and prevent” as they have done for the past four years conveniently ignoring that his political victory just may because more voters want to go in that direction America will likely be worse off than today.”[/i][/quote]It’s always pointed out that we can reduce the deficit by increasing income or by reducing spending. There also are two ways to avoid continuing stalemate; by kicking out Obama to by returning Democratic senators and representative in overwhelming numbers in order to work it him.
If Obama is a socialist, Reagan was even more so. Obama has never managed to raise taxes for important social goals. Reagan got taxes raised several times, when he realized it was necessary.
“However, I do agree with you that if he wins, and the GOP again “works to stall and prevent””
because we all know how well the Democrats worked with Bush during his presidency.
Jeff, you hit the nail on the head. I feel the life of the nation is on the line, Obama must go. If he gets another 4 years without having to worry about getting re-elected the harm he will do to our country will be irreversible.
From Wikipedia:
[quote]”Social democracy is a political ideology of the center-left on the political spectrum. It is officially a form of democratic evolutionary reformist socialism[1] that supports class collaboration as the course to achieve socialism.[2] Since the rise in popularity of the New Right and neoliberalism, a number of prominent modern social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism.[3] The chief goal of modern social democracy is the reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[4]
Social democracy advocates the creation of legal reforms and economic redistribution programs to eliminate economic class disparities between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.[5] It advocates the development of an economic democracy and the development of cooperative business organizations as an alternative to private enterprise.[6][7] Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers’ rights.”[/quote]
Obama is not an “in your face” socialist… he is worse. He puts on the act of a moderate, but with an extremist’s agenda.
He was the most liberal US Senator by his voting record. His mother was a socialist. His father was a Marxist. He is part of a liberal Democrat strategy to foment a class war and populist movement to divide the country and break down our original principles and values of a free, market-based system that individually rewards hard work and self-determination. Obamacare was only a step toward a government healthcare industry. TARP and Frank and Dodd are only steps toward a government owned banking industry. Obama has dictated what the energy industry can and cannot do. There has been a lot of policy and legislation coming from Democrats since he took power giving union labor unprecedented power over business.
No politician in the US would be able to simply implement the type of government design you appear to desire. Instead, Obama is leading a left charge that includes help from the likes of Soros, Lakeoff and Ayers exploiting and extending the downturn in the economy to try and pass as much legislation as possible to move the country toward eventual European-style socialism. These determined reconstructionists know that the ignorant masses can be trained to accept a new normal. They have been working on the college students for a couple of decades, and they have acquired much of the media and figured out how to manipulate what they do not own.
I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but I am pretty good at deciphering the strategy of my opponents by observing their body of work and actions. Obama is a socialist… more so than any other President before.
Unfortunately for the ubber-spend-happy Dems, the cupboard is bare. We are fully leveraged. We cannot afford more deficit spending. Bush and Obama blew the last bit on TARP and bailouts. Global competition and high energy costs prevents us from easily raising taxes on business (remember, taxes are just another expense to a business).
What we need is a lower flat tax system so that capital flows back and growth heats back up. Reagan would have figured that out. He would have jumped on fixing the economy instead of wasting his first 18 months implementing some Ted Kennedy memorial dream of a step toward government owned healthcare.
I forgot the first part, so I reposted…
jrberg:[i]”If Obama is a socialist, Reagan was even more so. Obama has never managed to raise taxes for important social goals. Reagan got taxes raised several times, when he realized it was necessary.”[/i]
LOL. Read my previous. Yeah, Reagan that broke up the Air Traffic Controllers Union. Yeah, he was sure buddy buddy with labor like Obama. Right.
Unfortunately for the ubber-spend-happy Dems, the cupboard is bare. We are fully leveraged. We cannot afford more deficit spending. Bush and Obama blew the last bit on TARP and bailouts. Global competition and high energy costs prevents us from easily raising taxes on business (remember, taxes are just another expense to a business).
What we need is a lower flat tax system so that capital flows back and growth heats back up. Reagan would have figured that out. He would have jumped on fixing the economy instead of wasting his first 18 months implementing some Ted Kennedy memorial dream of a step toward government owned healthcare.
Obama is not a socialist. He is not even a social democrat. He is a center-left Democrat. Judging from your post above, you are indeed prone to conspiracy theories, since you managed to invoke Soros and Ayers in the same sentence. The notion that he is trying to “extend the downturn in the economy” is just bizarre.
I don’t know, Jeff. Your views are way out on the right wing fringe if you actually believe what you just posted. Both Democrats and Republicans in the US have long advocated a mix of capitalism and government regulation, differing only in degree and emphasis. By your definition, every Republican president, ever, has been a social democrat, and therefore a socialist. So the term, as you are using it, has absolutely no meaning.
Don, no President has ever kept up so much anti-business, anti-capitalist rhetoric. I think you are ignoring quite a bit, or don’t see it, or are ignoring it. This guy is not anything close to any Democrat elected before.
[quote]Mr. Obama warned that growing income inequality meant that the United States was undermining its middle class and, “gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America: that this is the place where you can make it if you try.”
“This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class,” Mr. Obama told the crowd packed into the gym at Osawatomie High School.
“At stake,” he said, “is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.” [/quote]
Now Don…
[quote]The chief goal of modern social democracy is the reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[/quote]
So, how does this Obama rhetoric stack up with John Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you…” speach?
I think you and others are missing the big picture here.
I think you are ignoring the policies and rhetoric of nearly every president of the 20th century.
[i]”It’s always pointed out that we can reduce the deficit by increasing income or by reducing spending. There also are two ways to avoid continuing stalemate; by kicking out Obama to by returning Democratic senators and representative in overwhelming numbers in order to work it him.”[/i]
In terms of making things better for the average person, there is only ONE method that will work… grow the economy and put less of the proceeds in government hands, and more in private hands. How do you grow the economy?
Elect Obama and put Dems (aka “looters”) back in control of congress and you will grow the government. Then the moochers get free shit and we kick the can down the road again.
Government does not produce, it consumes… that is unless government starts taking over more private business.
Don, do you have any examples to share? I gave you Kennedy’s. It was exactly the oposite of what Obama is saying. Obama is saying “ask what your government can do for you because the deck is stacked against you”.
The domestic and fiscal policies of John F. Kennedy were basically centrist Democrat, and not far from those of the preceding Eisenhower administration.
[url]http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/John-F-Kennedy-Other-domestic-policies.html#b[/url] For more fun, review the fiscal and domestic policies of Richard Nixon.
Someone in banking calling anyone else a looter . Too funny ! Like that generalization, Jeff !
Jeff
You repeatedly accuse liberals of being brainwashed, but yourself seem to base a large part of your philosophy on the teachings of a single individual, Ayn Rand.
I posted yesterday that I became a liberal long before I was subjected to the “brainwashing” of liberal professors.
Ironically enough, it was Ayn Rand that inspired my liberal philosophy. She was my literary hero from age 13-16 when upon a reread of Atlas Shrugged, I realized how narcissistic, cold and shallow her philosophy was.
One of her major protagonists is a rapist. Hank Reardon doesn’t seduce, or become friends with or fall in love wtih Dagny Taggart, he rapes her. Pure and simple, rape. And does Ms.Rand use this to illustrate the complexities or foibles of human nature ? No she celebrates this as his right for somehow being a superior human being. Never mind that it is brutal, illegal, and constitutes adultery ( which she blames on his wife for being adverse to sex).
Somehow it seems to me that his wife got this one right. I would have trouble having sex with a human so self absorbed that he thinks it is ok to rape for his own satisfaction.
Now, I know that you said on a different post that you believe I am merely exposing a “chink in her armor”.
I disagree Jeff. I think this goes to the core of her values. Her premise was that the strongest individual has the right to physically, emotionally, socially and economically use all others in any way they see fit for their personal satisfaction. This is her core philosophy and I find it abhorrent and despicable. I would much rather claim the title of “looter” or “moocher” than I would “rapist” or “narcissist”. And I came to this conclusion on my own, spurred into seeking another, more compassionate road, by your idol.
My problem with this discussion of “liberals” vs “conservatives” is that it is too generalized. I tend to be a bit right of center, but a liberal on some issues and conservative on others. But I do not fit any particular label all of the time. I base my decision on a particular issue and try to keep an open mind. But I always keep my basic core values at the forefront. I doubt that much of anyone in the electorate does fit such stereotypical labels…
If true, a potentially interesting Christmas Surprise…
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2011/10/obama-and-clinton-campaigns-forged.html