Why do democrats and obama want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

[TyroneSlothrop]

Unnamed Republican sources now trying to claim Iran letter was meant as a 'cheeky' joke
by Barbara Morrill

"Can't you take a joke?"
In the wake of the backlash over the Republican Party's latest attempt to undermine the President of the United States with their open letter to Iran, telling them not to trust America and signed by 47 Republican Senators, unnamed Republican sources are now rolling out an amazingly stupid defense:

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a "cheeky" reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is quite clear that the "deal" being cooked up by obama and kerry will result in Iran having nuclear weapons. What is their motivation for wanting a nuclear Iran? Whose side are Obama and Kerry really on? Is the destruction of Israel one of obama's goals for his term of office? Is his early muslim indoctrination driving his decision making and foreign policy?

Which Democrats have stated that they want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I mean other than the ones in your head?

Dear Syriusly
Technically I agree with you that Democrats are saying no to Iran having nuclear arms:

Pelosi stated:
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries," her statement continued. "We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."

What history shows is that weak presidents such as Carter, blamed for Korea getting nuclear arms when the INTENT was peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will repeat with Obama being of that same leadership style, which is good for diplomacy but bad for standing up to militants who TAKE ADVANTAGE of this.

So the short answer is that the OP is a lie.

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

 

[2aguy]

It is quite clear that the "deal" being cooked up by obama and kerry will result in Iran having nuclear weapons. What is their motivation for wanting a nuclear Iran? Whose side are Obama and Kerry really on? Is the destruction of Israel one of obama's goals for his term of office? Is his early muslim indoctrination driving his decision making and foreign policy?

Which Democrats have stated that they want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I mean other than the ones in your head?

Dear Syriusly
Technically I agree with you that Democrats are saying no to Iran having nuclear arms:

Pelosi stated:
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries," her statement continued. "We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."

What history shows is that weak presidents such as Carter, blamed for Korea getting nuclear arms when the INTENT was peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will repeat with Obama being of that same leadership style, which is good for diplomacy but bad for standing up to militants who TAKE ADVANTAGE of this.

So the short answer is that the OP is a lie.

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

Really....that is how you see the 2 sides.....flip them....and you would be closer to being accurate.....

 

[emilynghiem]

It is quite clear that the "deal" being cooked up by obama and kerry will result in Iran having nuclear weapons. What is their motivation for wanting a nuclear Iran? Whose side are Obama and Kerry really on? Is the destruction of Israel one of obama's goals for his term of office? Is his early muslim indoctrination driving his decision making and foreign policy?

Which Democrats have stated that they want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I mean other than the ones in your head?

Dear Syriusly
Technically I agree with you that Democrats are saying no to Iran having nuclear arms:

Pelosi stated:
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries," her statement continued. "We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."

What history shows is that weak presidents such as Carter, blamed for Korea getting nuclear arms when the INTENT was peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will repeat with Obama being of that same leadership style, which is good for diplomacy but bad for standing up to militants who TAKE ADVANTAGE of this.

So the short answer is that the OP is a lie.

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

Really....that is how you see the 2 sides.....flip them....and you would be closer to being accurate.....

EXACTLY 2aguy! It's Mutual,
both sides project their bias and wonder why the other side is doing that.

When we figure out the biases are mutually projected
then we can work together to undo those layers and get to the core of what we really want underneath.

We can separate what we agree on, from what we are afraid of and want to avoid,
and find ways to achieve the same goals, without those harmful side effects causing both sides to react.
Exactly, thanks!

 

[2aguy]

Which Democrats have stated that they want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I mean other than the ones in your head?

Dear Syriusly
Technically I agree with you that Democrats are saying no to Iran having nuclear arms:

Pelosi stated:
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries," her statement continued. "We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."

What history shows is that weak presidents such as Carter, blamed for Korea getting nuclear arms when the INTENT was peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will repeat with Obama being of that same leadership style, which is good for diplomacy but bad for standing up to militants who TAKE ADVANTAGE of this.

So the short answer is that the OP is a lie.

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

Really....that is how you see the 2 sides.....flip them....and you would be closer to being accurate.....

EXACTLY 2aguy! It's Mutual,
both sides project their bias and wonder why the other side is doing that.

When we figure out the biases are mutually projected
then we can work together to undo those layers and get to the core of what we really want underneath.

We can separate what we agree on, with what we are afraid of and want to avoid,
and find ways to achieve the same goals, without those harmful side effects causing both sides to react.
Exactly, thanks!

I know you are trying to find a good way to go about this.....you don't really understand the nature of the two sides.....I have studied both sides for 28 years.....I have seen how each side behaves and I will tell you....you are wrong....those who support increasing the size and control of the central government to handle problems are at their core dishonest, and willing to do anything to achieve that end.......

If you don't see that yet....you need to keep studying things......

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Syriusly
Technically I agree with you that Democrats are saying no to Iran having nuclear arms:

Pelosi stated:
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries," her statement continued. "We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."

What history shows is that weak presidents such as Carter, blamed for Korea getting nuclear arms when the INTENT was peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will repeat with Obama being of that same leadership style, which is good for diplomacy but bad for standing up to militants who TAKE ADVANTAGE of this.

So the short answer is that the OP is a lie.

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

Really....that is how you see the 2 sides.....flip them....and you would be closer to being accurate.....

EXACTLY 2aguy! It's Mutual,
both sides project their bias and wonder why the other side is doing that.

When we figure out the biases are mutually projected
then we can work together to undo those layers and get to the core of what we really want underneath.

We can separate what we agree on, with what we are afraid of and want to avoid,
and find ways to achieve the same goals, without those harmful side effects causing both sides to react.
Exactly, thanks!

I know you are trying to find a good way to go about this.....you don't really understand the nature of the two sides.....I have studied both sides for 28 years.....I have seen how each side behaves and I will tell you....you are wrong....those who support increasing the size and control of the central government to handle problems are at their core dishonest, and willing to do anything to achieve that end.......

If you don't see that yet....you need to keep studying things......

Hi 2aguy as a Democrat caught in the middle of this habit of relying on politicians, party and govt,
I've been working on this DIRECTLY with fellow Democrats and Obama supporters "who don't get it."

What I find is needed is direct education and experience, training citizens to run their own government.
If they don't have sense of ownership, from the land and taxes on up, they can't understand how much responsibility and POWER they have. I found a poster on here with no clue that the laws empower citizens with govt authority. So that's where I begin, working with the people on the level they are starting at.

I believe what is going to happen is using the parties to organize people by issues and even classes of development. There is no reason to govern the independent managers who can run a whole town or city, creating jobs and internships for students to train for leadership or office, with the same babified rules of newbies who are first becoming independent and learning to run a household without getting kicked out on the street or depending on welfare.

Why not separate these programs by party, and allow citizens to enroll in the type of program they need?

Why take the welfare programs and force these on everyone?
That's like taking elementary school rules and making the post doctoral people give up their liberties to follow when they could be teaching the principals and teachers how to run a K through 12 program.

We are heading for major reforms, and I believe the parties are the key to separating out these different approaches to govt because people are in DIFFERENT stages of development.

We can't have 6th graders fighting with college students on what are the rules of the classroom
and deciding these by majority rule vote of the students. We need to sit down, and sort out where
different groups and approaches best address different audiences, and find a way to maximize
resources to make that work effectively and sustainably.

I have suggested a campus model for organizing communities to be self-governing.
Start training people in legal, financial and business/property mgmt and govt,
and then we can have better educated voters as well as trained future leaders BEFORE they run for office.
So they have experience managing cities, counties or even states before trying to run for federal offices.

Earned Amnesty
http www.houstonprogressive.org
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
ethics-commission.net <-- basic principles and ethics of govt I would require for all citizens

 

[2aguy]

So the short answer is that the OP is a lie.

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

Really....that is how you see the 2 sides.....flip them....and you would be closer to being accurate.....

EXACTLY 2aguy! It's Mutual,
both sides project their bias and wonder why the other side is doing that.

When we figure out the biases are mutually projected
then we can work together to undo those layers and get to the core of what we really want underneath.

We can separate what we agree on, with what we are afraid of and want to avoid,
and find ways to achieve the same goals, without those harmful side effects causing both sides to react.
Exactly, thanks!

I know you are trying to find a good way to go about this.....you don't really understand the nature of the two sides.....I have studied both sides for 28 years.....I have seen how each side behaves and I will tell you....you are wrong....those who support increasing the size and control of the central government to handle problems are at their core dishonest, and willing to do anything to achieve that end.......

If you don't see that yet....you need to keep studying things......

Hi 2aguy as a Democrat caught in the middle of this habit of relying on politicians, party and govt,
I've been working on this DIRECTLY with fellow Democrats and Obama supporters "who don't get it."

What I find is needed is direct education and experience, training citizens to run their own government.
If they don't have sense of ownership, from the land and taxes on up, they can't understand how much responsibility and POWER they have. I found a poster on here with no clue that the laws empower citizens with govt authority. So that's where I begin, working with the people on the level they are starting at.

I believe what is going to happen is using the parties to organize people by issues and even classes of development. There is no reason to govern the independent managers who can run a whole town or city, creating jobs and internships for students to train for leadership or office, with the same babified rules of newbies who are first becoming independent and learning to run a household without getting kicked out on the street or depending on welfare.

Why not separate these programs by party, and allow citizens to enroll in the type of program they need?

Why take the welfare programs and force these on everyone?
That's like taking elementary school rules and making the post doctoral people give up their liberties to follow when they could be teaching the principals and teachers how to run a K through 12 program.

We are heading for major reforms, and I believe the parties are the key to separating out these different approaches to govt because people are in DIFFERENT stages of development.

We can't have 6th graders fighting with college students on what are the rules of the classroom
and deciding these by majority rule vote of the students. We need to sit down, and sort out where
different groups and approaches best address different audiences, and find a way to maximize
resources to make that work effectively and sustainably.

I have suggested a campus model for organizing communities to be self-governing.
Start training people in legal, financial and business/property mgmt and govt,
and then we can have better educated voters as well as trained future leaders BEFORE they run for office.
So they have experience managing cities, counties or even states before trying to run for federal offices.

Earned Amnesty
http www.houstonprogressive.org
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
ethics-commission.net <-- basic principles and ethics of govt I would require for all citizens

Do you really think the democrats want better educated people....their allies in the teachers unions block all reform.......to protect the money the teachers pay the unions, which they give to politicians who approve the wages and benefits of the teachers donating to their campaigns....

There is no incentive to educate students better.......

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you really think the democrats want better educated people...

Unlike Oklahoma they aren't trying to ban AP classes. And the unions represent the teachers, that's their job. If you want to represent the students, do so, but they don't pay into a union now do they?

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you really think the democrats want better educated people....their allies in the teachers unions block all reform.......to protect the money the teachers pay the unions, which they give to politicians who approve the wages and benefits of the teachers donating to their campaigns....

There is no incentive to educate students better.......

Hi 2aguy I've run into both types among Democrats:
the type that just want to keep pushing the current bureaucracy
and the type that are trying to change it from the ground up.

By empowering and joining forces with the REAL progressives fighting against the politicized bureaucrats,
the system can be changed by offering better choices. then the bureaucrats will have to follow that.

Because of the contacts and programs in two districts destroyed by the bureaucratic politics,
we can use the damages done to these districts as LEVERAGE to demand reforms
as restitution to the programs that were censored that should have been equally represented and defended/protected by law. by setting up a local model, this can set a precedent for global change. http www.houstonprogressive.org Taking one case, setting up campuses to stop this trend of govt abuse and dependence, and then replicating it in all communities going through these same battles. Earned Amnesty

These can't get publicized if people like you keep claiming they don't exist.
The corrupt Democrats can keep hiding behind that image and project blame onto you.

but if you and other conservative allies get smart and align and ally with
the progressives trying to get rid of this corrupt oppression,
then we can promote those educational plans, proving that the Democrats in power conspired to violate civil rights
by censoring these plans and giving taxmoney to opposing developer interests to take over the districts.

We need to turn the Democrats around and get back to Constitutional law enforcement
and equal protections, not playing political games selling out the voters interests in order to get elected
and push unconstitutional agenda that sells ideas to the voters but can't ever been fulfilled since
govt isn't designed that way. That is political fraud in advertising. This needs to stop so
we need to organize support behind the real progressive plans that have been hijacked by corporate politics.

At some point the walls are going to fall that divide the parties, when they truly get who the real enemy is.
it isn't each other but it's the corporate lobbying that has sold out both parties and has us all infighting instead.

Progressive liberals have been fighting against corrupt Democrats
but if you listen to the media you think they all back Obama and Clinton to stay in power.

Instead of silencing allies in the same war against this corruption and abuse of power,
we need to align, across all parties and clean up the messes in govt.

 

[Redfish]

Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
I think the term CCJones used best describes it:
LOADED -- I think that is the best way to put it. Very good.

People attach their own projected emotions about things onto whatever they say, either hyping things up or down. They ask LOADED questions, and then complain when they get biased responses.
To get to the root of what they MEAN, sometimes these layers have to be peeled back and focus on the core.
If we judged people for how they dress up their statements, we'd never communicate. We'd go in circles.

I notice liberal minds tend to be better at analyzing critically, and sorting out the biases on both sides.
While the conservative speakers are better at taking a point and PUNCHING it without apology.

What if we could have both, working together? What if the critical analysis and deconstructionist approach of liberals was used to pick apart all the motivations and conflicts going into a situation, instead of lumping them together. And then if the conservative approach takes the solutions and push for those as the key focus.

If we don't work together, we end up with the opposite. Liberals who pick things apart and leave the car in shambles on the garage floor where we cannot drive or get anything done. Or Conservatives who want to railroad or ram things, either yes or no by absolutes, and won't listen either when something needs fixing.

How can we use our skills to help each other to be more effective and focus on corrections and solutions?

Really....that is how you see the 2 sides.....flip them....and you would be closer to being accurate.....

EXACTLY 2aguy! It's Mutual,
both sides project their bias and wonder why the other side is doing that.

When we figure out the biases are mutually projected
then we can work together to undo those layers and get to the core of what we really want underneath.

We can separate what we agree on, with what we are afraid of and want to avoid,
and find ways to achieve the same goals, without those harmful side effects causing both sides to react.
Exactly, thanks!

I know you are trying to find a good way to go about this.....you don't really understand the nature of the two sides.....I have studied both sides for 28 years.....I have seen how each side behaves and I will tell you....you are wrong....those who support increasing the size and control of the central government to handle problems are at their core dishonest, and willing to do anything to achieve that end.......

If you don't see that yet....you need to keep studying things......

Hi 2aguy as a Democrat caught in the middle of this habit of relying on politicians, party and govt,
I've been working on this DIRECTLY with fellow Democrats and Obama supporters "who don't get it."

What I find is needed is direct education and experience, training citizens to run their own government.
If they don't have sense of ownership, from the land and taxes on up, they can't understand how much responsibility and POWER they have. I found a poster on here with no clue that the laws empower citizens with govt authority. So that's where I begin, working with the people on the level they are starting at.

I believe what is going to happen is using the parties to organize people by issues and even classes of development. There is no reason to govern the independent managers who can run a whole town or city, creating jobs and internships for students to train for leadership or office, with the same babified rules of newbies who are first becoming independent and learning to run a household without getting kicked out on the street or depending on welfare.

Why not separate these programs by party, and allow citizens to enroll in the type of program they need?

Why take the welfare programs and force these on everyone?
That's like taking elementary school rules and making the post doctoral people give up their liberties to follow when they could be teaching the principals and teachers how to run a K through 12 program.

We are heading for major reforms, and I believe the parties are the key to separating out these different approaches to govt because people are in DIFFERENT stages of development.

We can't have 6th graders fighting with college students on what are the rules of the classroom
and deciding these by majority rule vote of the students. We need to sit down, and sort out where
different groups and approaches best address different audiences, and find a way to maximize
resources to make that work effectively and sustainably.

I have suggested a campus model for organizing communities to be self-governing.
Start training people in legal, financial and business/property mgmt and govt,
and then we can have better educated voters as well as trained future leaders BEFORE they run for office.
So they have experience managing cities, counties or even states before trying to run for federal offices.

Earned Amnesty
http www.houstonprogressive.org
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
ethics-commission.net <-- basic principles and ethics of govt I would require for all citizens

Do you really think the democrats want better educated people....their allies in the teachers unions block all reform.......to protect the money the teachers pay the unions, which they give to politicians who approve the wages and benefits of the teachers donating to their campaigns....

There is no incentive to educate students better.......

educated informed voters are very dangerous to democrats. ignorance and misinformation is what they thrive on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you really think the democrats want better educated people....their allies in the teachers unions block all reform.......to protect the money the teachers pay the unions, which they give to politicians who approve the wages and benefits of the teachers donating to their campaigns....

There is no incentive to educate students better.......

educated informed voters are very dangerous to democrats. ignorance and misinformation is what they thrive on.

Redfish and 2aguy
The way to save face for Democrats is to use the models that come out of their districts.
Build campuses there for teaching Constitutional laws, due process, and govt management.
Put pressure on Sheila Jackson Lee's office to support these plans for the future of the Democrats.
So they have no choice but to be in, or they will get kicked out if they show they oppose empowerment.

Both the districts that had educational plans censored by political conflicts with development
are in Sheila Jackson Lee's areas. Start with those plans, and set up tracks for educating
voters and leaders. Use that to unite the Black leaders and end this partisan division killing those communities.
Set up microlending to invest in education, training and internships as part of the govt education program.

Both Obama and Carson agree on microlending and education, so this focus can end the divisive politics
that keeps masses enslaved to corporate politicians gaming the system and selling out real representation.