• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Feminists for Kucinich

Theodore Kurita

Leader of the Draconis Combine
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
905
Vote Kucinich! The only democrat candidate that has enough balls to take on the Bush Administration.

Oh, as for the Title. This is the latest news from the Dennis Kucinich campaign.

<hr>


The Kucinich for President Campaign takes a big step forward today with
the announcement of "Feminists for Kucinich." Eight diverse feminist
writers and organizers have initiated a statement in support of
Kucinich, which will be widely circulated to attract new supporters.

The original signers are:
BARBARA EHRENREICH, political essayist and author ("Nickel and Dimed");
ANGELA GILLIAM, professor and expert on Black feminist anthropology;
YNESTRA KING, writer and activist on environmental, feminist, and
disability issues; GAIL LERNER, organizer in the global women's movement
and with U.N. agencies; GRACE PALEY, peace activist and author
("Enormous Changes at the Last Minute"); ROSALIND PETCHESKY,
international feminist activist and political science professor; DIGNA
SANCHEZ, Latina community activist in New York; MEREDITH TAX, novelist,
essayist and international organizer of feminist writers.

Although the statement has just started to circulate, it has already
attracted signatures from such prominent feminists as Blanche Weisen
Cook, biographer of Eleanor Roosevelt; Marilyn French, author of "The
Women's Room"; actress and singer Ronnie Gilbert; Jewish activist and
poet Irena Klepfisz; and political scientist Zillah Eisenstein.

Here's a summary of the statement. For the full statement, and to sign
on: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/feminists_4_kucinich/

FEMINISTS FOR KUCINICH
Rather than waiting to hear what all the Democratic candidates have to
say, then jumping on the bandwagon of the least offensive, we decided to
make our own list of priorities and see who agrees with us.

1) We want a candidate who will stop the war on the poor. 2) We want a
candidate who stands for peace, respects international treaties and
institutions such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, and
tries to resolve problems through negotiation. 3) We want a candidate
who will defend the separation of church and state, and the individual
rights guaranteed us by the Constitution.

4) We want a candidate who opposes discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity, and who stands for women's reproductive
rights and recognizes that these rights depend on universal health
insurance. 5) We want a candidate who will address questions of global
economic imbalance and stand up for the rights of immigrants. 6) We
want a candidate who will challenge racism domestically and internationally.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who not only agrees with all these
points but has developed policies to support them: starting a
cabinet-level Department of Peace; supporting unions and the right to
organize; cutting the bloated military budget; restoring environmental
regulations and launching a "Global Green Deal" to benefit developing
countries; withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO and challenging IMF/World
Bank policies; repealing the "Patriot Act"; upholding Roe v. Wade;
working for universal health insurance; and abolishing the racially and
economically biased death penalty.

Because we feel that he comes closest to representing our priorities, we
have decided to support Dennis Kucinich for President.
--
JULY 4 WITH WILLIE: A special thank you to Willie and Annie Nelson for
their gracious hospitality at the July 4th "picnic" for tens of
thousands of gleeful concertgoers in Texas. Willie introduced Dennis to
the crowd -- and Willie and Annie met privately with Dennis to discuss
how they can support the campaign and raise the Kucinich profile among
voters. (Dennis flew to Texas after marching in July 4th parades with
constituents in Ohio, and before flying on to California for various
meetings, including with ILWU dockworkers and with California residents
from India.)

CAN KUCINICH BEAT BUSH?: You bet he can. Go to
http://kucinich.us/electable.htm and circulate.

PLEASE DONATE: Our campaign draws the biggest crowds and biggest
audience response, but we are not YET the top campaign in funding.
Please contribute. If you're maxed out, please get your friends, fellow
activists or rich relations to donate. Help us show that our
fundraising surge at the end of June was no fluke.
https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php
 
((^-_-^)) said:
1) We want a candidate who will stop the war on the poor.
Right, the war on the poor. There is critical thought for you. Any attempt at fiscal responsibility is met with demagoguery. You know those rascally Republicans just want to hurt poor people and burn babies with matches.

2) We want a candidate who stands for peace, respects international treaties and institutions such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, and tries to resolve problems through negotiation.
A euphemism for "please don't hurt us".

The description sounds just like Nevile Chamberlain. He tried to solve problems through negotiation.

5) We want a candidate who will address questions of global economic imbalance and stand up for the rights of immigrants.
In California we pay for the births of all and any immigrants including illegal ones. Free health care, free prenatal care, food stamps, valid drivers licences, due process, what else do they want or need?

What rights do immigrants not have?

...cutting the bloated military budget
Oh that is rich. 3,000 lives were lost on 911 and those that perpetrated this evil have vowed to carry out more and worse attacks. And Kucinich wants to reduce national defense calling the budget bloated. I guess the soldiers who are risking their lives for us now can forget about any raises if Kucinich is nominated.

CAN KUCINICH BEAT BUSH?: You bet he can.
Oh yeah, that is what Americans want. Someone to cut the defense and protect the rights of those who are planning attacks.

Hey, I have a motto for him.

Kucinich, the best defense is...uh...less defense...er...A CHEAPER defense, no that's not right...I know, Kucinich, who needs a defense when you can just kiss the tyrants a$$.

True, it is a bit of demagoguery but then one good turn deserves another, right?

Sorry, forgot to log out my son. The preceeding was brought to you by RandFan
 
((^-_-^)) said:
Vote Kucinich! The only democrat candidate that has enough balls to take on the Bush Administration.

huh huh, you said balls
 
Re: Re: Feminists for Kucinich

RandFan said:
Right, the war on the poor. There is critical thought for you. Any attempt at fiscal responsibility is met with demagoguery. You know those rascally Republicans just want to hurt poor people and burn babies with matches.

I think both arguments - yours and Chessmans, are poor in this regard. Nothing more then appeal to emotion.

A euphemism for "please don't hurt us".

The description sounds just like Nevile Chamberlain. He tried to solve problems through negotiation.

Can you explain how attempting to maintain peace through negotiations leads to a "please don't hurt us" policy? What you've done here is nothing more then circulus in demonstrando.


In California we pay for the births of all and any immigrants including illegal ones. Free health care, free prenatal care, food stamps, valid drivers licences, due process, what else do they want or need?

What rights do immigrants not have?

I think the original argument was mired in false facts and appeals to emotion, good reply here.


Oh that is rich. 3,000 lives were lost on 911 and those that perpetrated this evil have vowed to carry out more and worse attacks. And Kucinich wants to reduce national defense calling the budget bloated. I guess the soldiers who are risking their lives for us now can forget about any raises if Kucinich is nominated.

Oh yeah, that is what Americans want. Someone to cut the defense and protect the rights of those who are planning attacks.

This is nothing more then appeal to emotion again. The original argument might in fact be valid - I don't know. Also please note, terrorists are not countries, they're small cells of people. A large military can't stop terrorists - they're designed to fight other soldiers, not civilians.


Hey, I have a motto for him.

Kucinich, the best defense is...uh...less defense...er...A CHEAPER defense, no that's not right...I know, Kucinich, who needs a defense when you can just kiss the tyrants a$$.

True, it is a bit of demagoguery but then one good turn deserves another, right?

Sorry, forgot to log out my son. The preceeding was brought to you by RandFan

I really think you can do better then that. Personal attacks do not make for strong arguments.
 
Re: Re: Re: Feminists for Kucinich

Hi ImpyTimpy,

Good response. If I am going to fault others for posts that perhaps are like mine in this thread then I have to be prepared for criticism and perhaps admit a bit of hypocrisy.

ImpyTimpy said:
I think both arguments - yours and Chessmans, are poor in this regard. Nothing more then appeal to emotion.
There were two sentences. The second one was sarcastic. Carrying out to its logical conclusion the argument of "the war on the poor."

BTW, who is chessman?

As to the first sentence. There is a real problem with demagoguery from the left. This nation is suffering from very real problems of fiscal mismanagement. Unfortunately there is little that anyone can do because any attempts at changing the fundamental dynamics of spending money are met with such outrageous rhetoric as "the war on the poor". Let's be honest, politicians do not rely on objectivity to achieve goals. Yes, including George Bush.

Can you explain how attempting to maintain peace through negotiations leads to a "please don't hurt us" policy? What you've done here is nothing more then circulus in demonstrando.
The paragraph was rhetorical, of that there is no question. However history has shown that peace cannot be maintained by negotiation alone. There have always been tyrants that will lie and break their agreements. So negotiation is near worthless with out some teeth to back up the negotiations.

I think the original argument was mired in false facts and appeals to emotion, good reply here.
Thank you.

This is nothing more then appeal to emotion again. The original argument might in fact be valid - I don't know.
Again, my "argument" is laden with emotion but it is not IMO bankrupt. You are correct, the said argument might be valid, the defense budget might actually be bloated. Particularity when it comes to those things that aren't necessary. And let's be honest, one hell of allot of money is wasted on defense contracts that the military does not need and often does not even want. The spending has to do more with the a particular congressman than any real need.

But my point had more to do with political rhetoric than facts about military spending. It is unlikely that a politician will win in light of the current environment if that politician wants to cut spending.

Also please note, terrorists are not countries, they're small cells of people. A large military can't stop terrorists - they're designed to fight other soldiers, not civilians.
Your point is arguable, I would note that the military can target training facilities and governments that sponsor terrorism.

I really think you can do better then that. Personal attacks do not make for strong arguments.
Thank you and fair enough. Please note that at the end of my rant I noted my own demagoguery with an obvious open door for anyone to note the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.

Thanks again,

RandFan.
 
We want a candidate who stands for peace

Usually that means "stands for surrender".

respects international treaties and
institutions such as the U.N.


That's the SAME UN that has Syria, Libya, Sudan and Nigeria on its human rights commission, right?

The same UN which has Iraq heading its disarmament commission?

The same UN whose latest "anti-racism" conference turned out to be the biggest antisemitic rally since Nuremberg in 1938--so full of "death to the jews" rhetoric that the US walked out in disgust?

Yes, why not respect such an institution.

tries to resolve problems through negotiation.

Let's just ask Chamberline and Wilson about that one.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Feminists for Kucinich

RandFan said:
Hi ImpyTimpy,

Good response. If I am going to fault others for posts that perhaps are like mine in this thread then I have to be prepared for criticism and perhaps admit a bit of hypocrisy.

There were two sentences. The second one was sarcastic. Carrying out to its logical conclusion the argument of "the war on the poor."

BTW, who is chessman?

Your posts are normally quiet good and well argued so I was a bit surprised to see this from you. :)

Chessman = Chessmanskeptic = the starter of this thread.


As to the first sentence. There is a real problem with demagoguery from the left. This nation is suffering from very real problems of fiscal mismanagement. Unfortunately there is little that anyone can do because any attempts at changing the fundamental dynamics of spending money are met with such outrageous rhetoric as "the war on the poor". Let's be honest, politicians do not rely on objectivity to achieve goals. Yes, including George Bush.

I think both sides enjoy throwing insults at each other while at the same time appealing to emotion rather than logic. Let's not forget however, that it is easier to criticise the driver while you're the passenger. I was hoping for a better rebuttal to chessman given your history hence my original post.

The paragraph was rhetorical, of that there is no question. However history has shown that peace cannot be maintained by negotiation alone. There have always been tyrants that will lie and break their agreements. So negotiation is near worthless with out some teeth to back up the negotiations.

Thank you for clearing it up. I couldn't agree more, mere words are nothing if there is no way to back them up.


Thank you.

Again, my "argument" is laden with emotion but it is not IMO bankrupt. You are correct, the said argument might be valid, the defense budget might actually be bloated. Particularity when it comes to those things that aren't necessary. And let's be honest, one hell of allot of money is wasted on defense contracts that the military does not need and often does not even want. The spending has to do more with the a particular congressman than any real need.

But my point had more to do with political rhetoric than facts about military spending. It is unlikely that a politician will win in light of the current environment if that politician wants to cut spending.

That is very true.


Your point is arguable, I would note that the military can target training facilities and governments that sponsor terrorism.

Thank you and fair enough. Please note that at the end of my rant I noted my own demagoguery with an obvious open door for anyone to note the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.

Thanks again,

RandFan.

Yes, you're right, my point is arguable. It is true that governments can sponsor terrorism and in these cases a military intervention may be necessary. However, please remember that terrorists themselves are made up of small groups of people. If we remove a government that supports terrorism or attack a country where some of them are based, they will simply relocate while the world will view the actions with suspicion.

A fine scalpel is needed to remove the tumours inside the body.

Also the fundamental problem of terrorism is what causes people to become terrorists in the first place.
 
If Kucinich becomes the democratic candidate, I predict a landslide victory!!!


For Bush.
 
((^-_-^)) said:


PLEASE DONATE: Our campaign draws the biggest crowds and biggest
audience response, but we are not YET the top campaign in funding.
Please contribute. If you're maxed out, please get your friends, fellow
activists or rich relations to donate. Help us show that our
fundraising surge at the end of June was no fluke.
https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php

CMS - To be fair would you mind posting all of the other current candidate's fund raising URLs?
I keep looking and looking but I cannot find Al Sharpton's site.
Don't bother with Kerry's - it's under Heinz 57.;)
 
Re: Re: Feminists for Kucinich

Supercharts said:


CMS - To be fair would you mind posting all of the other current candidate's fund raising URLs?
I keep looking and looking but I cannot find Al Sharpton's site.
Don't bother with Kerry's - it's under Heinz 57.;)


Didn't you people figure this out already.

GAAAARRRRGGGHHHH:mad: :mad: :mad:


This was a direct campaign letter that I attached to the bottom right after the horizontal rule.

I used the Email Subject as the thread title hope to get Jedi Knight to Bite!



Can't you people see I have been trying to reel Jedi Knight into one of my threads!

:hit: :hit:


Why hasn't Jedi Knight taken a nibble even?
 

Back
Top Bottom