Vfor911---very astute observation. The more this so called government (mafia) of our tries to ram their propaganda down our collective throats, the less credible theu become. "Methinks they protest too much." How many more lies before people in this country realize that despite what the mind-control apparatus has been filling their heads with, "we are not the white knights, the impeccable warriors we have been told we are."

Hillary Clinton in her remarkable senate career has blamed Canada for 9/11, supported the patriot act, wiretapping, an bill to ban flag burning, war against Iraq, blamed the Iraqis for the disaster afterwards, approved the Kyle-lieberman resolution which was hatched in Cheney's office, takes more money from lobbyists than all the other candidates combined and now is lying again about Iran. What a great democrat she is!

It's pretty clear that Hilary is the logical successor to Bush in terms of the military industrial complex. Anyone expecting different is in denial or just not informed.

Well when its AIPAC, AEI, and the MIC calling the shots you get Hillary Clinton.

Why do we have to vote for the oligarchy's candidate?

The '08 election has already been decided by the corporate media and the scores of war-profiteering corporations. And the winner and new World Champion is Hillary Clinton. She is now the biggest recipient in any party of corporate donations, and being the richest candidate will fill the media coffers with relentless advertising spots in the next few months....jeezuz! America is about to trade Atilla the Hun for Lizzie Borden. When it comes to choosing an effective leader, it always pays to pick the biggest WAR CRIMINAL. George's wars have gotten undying support from his new girlfriend Hillary. They and anybody who supports their agenda are all WAR CRIMINALS. Do not vote for this insane woman just because you think she might be the lesser of two evils. We might as well keep President Jackass.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Hillary is New York's answer to Joe Lieberman.

She may be the candidate unless she is being set up so that the Republicans and media can blast her after she gets the nomination.

If its her vs Ghouliani I think its a toss up--but if its her vs any other candidate, she may be in a worse position since the rest of the country seems to dislike candidates from New York.

All they need do is circulate those lesbian tryst stories from the 70s. The south will love them.

Why doesn't Hillary just move her office to Tel Aviv and get it over with.
Then big Bill won't have so far to go when he "grabs a rifle and jumps into a foxhole, to defend Israel with his life."
Lets see, who are they, along with Schumer, Feinstein, Lantos and on and on and on, really loyal to first?
We know the answer to that. The phony baloney parasite democracy, that's who.

"…there is only one political party in the United States, The Money Party. It has two wings, Republican and Democratic. That party represents excessive concentrations of wealth in the hands of corporations, other organizations, and individuals. They put up the money and get what they pay for every time.

They make sure that the election system is rigged to rely on money like a junkie relies on heroin. The system takes care of them. They don't have to obey the same rules that we do. Why? Because they're above the law." — Michael Collins

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11069

A vote for Hitlery is a vote for an attack on Iran and the draft. Do you want your children, grandchildren, and other loved ones to fight and die for corporate profits? Then vote for Hitlery.

Incidentally, she is very proud of her politically conservative upbringing. Wasn't she a Republican previously? It seems she still is a member of the WAR party as they so proudly call themselves.

Just who in the hell are these people that put this woman at the front of the pack? It's rank-and-file Democrats that are Clinton's enablers. All she's doing is taking advantage of her situation: a majority in the party that will rubber stamp her nomination no matter how many fund raisers Rupert Murdoch holds for her.

It's easy to complain that Democrats in office don't have a spine to stand up to Bush, but we who would call ourselves Democrats need to take a long, hard look in the mirror about what we tolerate in the party. It's down to this: we are the spineless ones if we let Clinton get this nomination.

Winning in 2008 just doesn't seem that damn important any more.

"The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops."

Hm. Well, I know you guys are concerned any such evidence would contribute to a war or military action against Iran, so I understand this sentiment, but honestly, even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fingerprints were found, with a note attached in his handwriting stating "Death to Amrika! Use only against US marines on Haifa Street, inshallah! Yours, Mahmoud A." - what would you guys say to that? I am curious.

If either Clinton or Giuliani wins the corporatocracy wins again.

Lobo Gris

With the religious right staggering & the Republican Party out of gas, a Hillary candidacy would be the thing to infuse life; a Hillary presidency would be a disaster, assuring that Republicans would return in a majority with the DLC Democrats continuing their current role.

Hillary is also anti-Chavez and opposed to ALBA, the trade agreement between Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba.

All Hillary could whinge about in the 'debate' is that attacks on her collusion and collaboration were "mud-slinging out of the Republican playbook". She should know, since her own dirty-tricks playbook was authored by people from the same groups of political consultants.

THE PEOPLE, YES! HILLARY, NO!

Until we as a Nation find a final solution for the Corrupting influence of AIPAC and Co. on our political system, this Republic (if we can still call it such) and the world will never know peace.

Kulthur, I'd say the US has no business being in Iraq, which it invaded illegally, and that a neighboring country providing support to the resistance is hardly surprising.

What would you say?

If Iran invades Mexico, what do you think the US stance should/would be?

Let's not forget 1988 and the destroying of a commercial airliner. 290 children, women and men died.

Has the US ever declared that to be terrorism? Of course not. The US committed the atrocity. The USS Vincennes, in Iranian waters, shot down a commercial airplane.
Everyone on the ship got a ribbon and George the First One said that he would never apologize for anything the US did.

If the tragedy had happened to US citizens, then it would have been terrorism.

Is it true that some still can't see the hypocrisy?

the MSM is praising Hillary for stepping on Obama and Edwards in the "debate". In both instances, she got a free ride (no follow up question -after Obama- to her single word response of "no" when asked if she supported licences for immigrants) In the case of Edwards, she accused him of using Republican talking points when he pointed out that she has been taking huge amounts of money from corporatists,and basically acting like a corporatist. First of all, I don't think that is a Republican talking point - at least I haven't heard it. Second, she knew Edwards wouldn't be given a chance to respond to that, so that was like hitting below the belt. But even if Edwards had had a chance to respond, he would have been in the position of responding defensively which is never a good idea in these forums. So now we see plainly that Hillary does not fight fair and is in fact something of a manipulative bully.
There is much that could be said about Wolf Blitzer (the toad!) and his efforts to make everyone but Hillary look bad, along with calling almost exclusively on the top three and ignoring the rest. Then we have the whole set up by CNN for this debacle - er I mean debate- (did they cram the hall with Hillary supporters? and why didn't they crack down on the boos from the audience every time a candidate other than Hillary said something they didn't like?)
I haven't stated my concerns very elegantly, but I hope a genuine pundit will bring up the subject of Hillary's debating style and point out how unfair it is.

"I'd say the US has no business being in Iraq"

This is not an answer, though, to the question I asked, evoked by the substance of the column with which this thread is concerned.

"that a neighboring country providing support to the resistance is hardly surprising"

Yes, exactly. But so what's with the skepticism regarding Iran's government's probable involvement with the shipment of arms into Iraq for th purpose of killing our troops and its political enemies in that country?

"If Iran invades Mexico, what do you think the US stance would/should be?"

Well, if the Islamic Republic of Iran were to invade Mexico - that is, the actual Iran were to invade the actual Mexico - then I'd say we should repel the invasion and destroy Iran's offensive capability, including destroying its government. If a hypothetical Iran in a hypothetical world - say, a world in which Iran were governed by the propositions of individual liberty, republican participation in government, economic freedom, civil rights, and in which Iran was actually responsible for protecting the sea lanes, responding to aggression, upholding the UN system of aspirations, and so on - I guess in that world I'd wonder why exactly they're doing that, and what Mexico's side is, and whether they intend to attack the USA or to disrupt our economic relations to an unacceptable extent in view of what I considered the legitimacy and benefit both of Iran's intent and of its subequent behavior in light of its assurances. I'd also take into account alliance obligations, including the general propositions to which I was committed by virtue of participation in a world eager not to set precedents for military adventurism.

"But so what's with the skepticism regarding Iran's government's probable involvement with the shipment of arms into Iraq for th purpose of killing our troops and its political enemies in that country?"

@kulthur: So you have identified a potential motive... But that is not enough. That, of course, was enough, in the case of some, to prove that Saddam had amassed enough WMD to constitute a threat to the USA. Identifying a potential motive is NOT enough.

The same chorus here that is the most vocal in denouncing Hillary Clinton is also the most vocal in urging that the rest of us do NOTHING to support any of her rivals for the Democratic nomination. They hate Obama and Edwards just as much, and reserve a special scorn for Dennis Kucinich, who has courageously and eloquently championed progressive ideas and stood up to the corporate media's bullying.

If you really don't like Hillary so much, how about supporting Edwards, who mostly talks the talk, or Obama, who we know has had to walk the walk, or Kucinich, who does both?

Not that Hillary Clinton is really all that bad. We'd go back to the way things were under Bill. Maybe we'd even get some progress. I really don't think Hillary, as president, with the power to make the actual decisions, would start a war with Iran or do anything even remotely as stupid and evil as what Bush has done, or as what Rudy Guiliani would do.

Well, guess what? It's looking quite likely that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, Giuliani the Republican nomination. Not certain, but quite likely. So what do you do then?

According to the Damn-the-Democrats chorus, you disrupt the Democratic convention and do everything you can to get as many people as possible to throw their votes away on a candidate like, maybe, Cynthia McKinney running as a Green, or Ralph Nader retreaded yet again. Which in terms of the actual outcome for the following four years, can only have the effect of making it more likely that we will be facing "President Guiliani."

This is the same strategy that got us President Bush, the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo, Star Wars Part 2, no action on global warming, etc. And when President Guiliani takes the oath of office, these self-styled radicals who will have played such an essential role in helping him get there will publicly wash their hands the same way they washed them when Bush was inaugurated: "It's Gore's fault for being so wimpy"... "Bush didn't really win anyway"... "Why didn't Gore call for guerrilla war in the hills"... "We're tired of people blaming us"...

Let's run through the facts shall we:

1-The Government decides to invade two of Iran's neighbors in the region.

2-The Government occupies two of Iran's neighbors, indefinately.

3-The Government builds massive airfields and bases on Iraq to house tens of thousands of soldiers, to go along with THREE carrier fleets in the Persian Gulf.

4-The Government, on numerous occasions including beginning in 2002, begins making threats at Iran and denouncing them as evil, while simultaneously balking at any attempts at cooperation by the Iranian Government.

5-The Government, constantly, goes around the country racheting up the propoganda in order to try to manipulate the public into another war (ie try to gain support for military action).

6-In terms of history, the Government has supplied weapons of mass descruction (and conventional weapons) to Saddam Hussein who used them in the 1980's to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians during the Iran Iraq war.

7-A Government which supports and supplies Isreal with nuclear weapons.

So I'm supposed to, as an innocent objective bystander, am supposed to look at this scenario and be SHOCKED that Iran wants to aquire Nuclear Weapons? I'm supposed to be APPALLED that they might be giving Weapons to the insurgency in Iraq?

That is how Iran views it yes - but how do You view Iran?

For some reason people don't seem all that interested in doing anything but sympathizing with them.

I don't get it.

[And by the way cut the crap about Saddam being supported by the USA: the USSR gave Saddam 90% of his stuff, the French most of the remainder. Get your facts right. And can you think of a reason Why we might have supported Hussein, to the extent we did?]

these loaded allegations are like the provocative question "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Hillary Clinton is a pro-Zionist whore, even worse than her husband. This is the Voice of Israel speaking. Iran has not attacked another nation since 1856. We, and Israel, need to emulate them.

If it was only Hillary Clinton, the Iran hype could be ignored as the latest bugaboo external threat to stir up the masses. The tentacles of Israel are spread far and wide. In the Melbourne Age newspaper in Australia, Nov 18th, a MAD jewish council representative, Colin Rubinstein, published the usual rabid allegations on Iran, citing that Armegeddon was near because Iran most analysts (unnamed and unevidenced) agreed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Fortunately the article was not deemed fit for publication in the sister newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald. I can only conclude the entire Zionist league has a bad case of psychologic projection of their own power hungry desires onto their planned victims. Unfortunately in trying to read the minds of Iran, the biggest available resource the Israeli's have is their own twisted paranoid ideation, whose dark dreams they project onto every neighbour. When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and disarms its hundreds of nuclear armed missiles, and apologizes with compensation for the cluster bombing of Lebanon, I might start to think that Armageddon might not be so close after all.

RichM and mastershake--great job---much better than I could have done to address the "facts" kulthur thought to raise. Enuff said about that---your patience and persistence is to be commended.

It is always interesting to me as a " soul having a human experience" to have to answer to those who put allegiance to government, before human compassion, and a universal sense of what is or is not truthful or just.

My answer to kulthur as to why I refuse to see Iran as the enemy and a threat, is because I identify with the millions of innocent Iranians who will be dead or maimed as a result of an agressive entity's ( USA) out of control possible behavior. Compare our military expenditures with Iran's. Have you never sided with an underdog? Have you never despised a bully? No one should have to explain to you why they may feel that Iran has plausible and legitimate reasons for why they do what they do. Just try getting beyond all the demonizing, and start seeing things as a human being. It's much simpler that way to do the right thing.

As for Hillary, no one has to tell ME why having her as the next president will bring little change from the current staus quo. She's busy now reinforcing that "fortress Amerika" framework and mentality---you know---the one that requires us to suspend our civil liberties to be safe in this never-ending war on terrorism.

I don't believe for one New York minute that she'll undo anything BushCo has set in place. Afterall--Bush is just the current mask that hides the real powers behind the throne. Hillary would just be a new mask.

Kulture,
During the Vietnam war the Russians and Chinese supplied weapons and even actively supplied troops to fight against and kill Americans. What did we do about that?
During the Korean war the Chinese did the same. Hundreds of thousands of troops and supplies and jets and tanks. What did we do about that? Attack China or Russia? Nope. No way.
Also back then we didn't have the phony baloney parasite democracy jumping up and down screaming "bomb Iran, bomb Iran, kill, kill, kill.

The real Hillary has been kidnapped and is being held at a CIA black site. The candidate we know as Senator Clinton is actually Joe Lieberman in drag.

Hedology,
You know when that will happen, don't you? That's right, when Hell freezes over. And lets not forget who wrote the book on that, too.

I didn't say the USA didn't support Iraq - we provided some bio- and chemical cultures, some helicopters, and we provided very valuable targeting information that allowed Iraq to repel the Iranian offensives that threatened Baghdad and the regime. Yes, I know this. We also sold weapons to Iran. The point I was addressing was "the USA created Saddam Hussein." The USA did not create Saddam Hussein. The purpose of the CIA contact was to push Saddam into power against the government that was dismantling the last remnants of the Baghdad Pact that had committed Iraq to the USA sphere of influence, as a counterbalance to Soviet influence. The revolution, or coup d'etat, however, resulted rather in the choice of the Soviet Union, in tandem with the Syrian Baath government, because of Nasser's growing suspicion of the USSR - which in fact inspired much of this monkeying. Yes, I know all this. But that is a small part of the story of the nature of the regime, and I was trying to suggest that there are many other players involved, and despite the intended suggestion about CIA manipulation, anyoe can see the results of CIA's attempts to manipulate events. The fundamental point is that control without voluntary cooperation is not possible; the subject of the operation himself retains wide latitude. In actual fact, the USSR provided Saddam with the vast bulk of his armaments - were we not facing Soviet tanks during both Gulf War I and II? Katyushas? Kalashnikovs? Whatever those anti-tank missiles are called? (Sorry I forget) Were not the jets uncovered or destroyed Migs and Mirages? Yes.

As for the Iran comments, the point that I'm making is not that there are not many innocent Iranians who would be harmed - of course there are! If we are to believe the rightwingers whom I read, they are on the verge of revolt, and lack only material and media support from the United States and the West in general. It is extremely dangerous for them because the regime has several personally-loyal armies and intelligence agencies - they do not want a repeat of the army refusing to shoot in 1979 which allowed them to come to power.

But the nature of the regime - they are not automatons, they have their own nature and designs, and this must be first and foremost recognized - is not one with which anyone ought to sympathize, and like it or not they are at the controls. I have not heard in any other quarter a credible plan to neutralize or overcome this, nor have I heard a convincing argument as to the supposedly pleasant effects a withdrawal from the theater would inspire from Iran. It is the same regime we face which brutalizes its people. Like Iraq, the choice isn't between peace for the subjects and death for the subjects, but death for the subjects in perpetuation of a totalitarian theocracy which also enables their manipulations in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere - for the purpose of creating the same system there - or death for the subjects which results in the end of the regime and an end to its manipulations.

I'm not saying it's inevitable, or that I know how to do it, or that I know just how many people will be killed, or how many lives this would be worth, or pretend that it does not matter that there will inevitably be non-military casualties, or any other Dr. Strangelove calculus. Perhaps internal revolt would work best - although it is by no means certain that this would result in fewer casualties. Perhaps an air attack on military facilities in tandem with a revolutionary push? Perhaps nothing? But the point is this is not propoganda, this is real, and to deny it or attribute it to a political conspiracy is an evasion, not an indication of sophistication.

We're doomed. We're going to get either Clinton or a Republican for the next president, and there ain't a damned thing people can do about it.

As Ron Paul suggests, how about lets do nothing. How about minding our own business and not play enforcer for the troublemaker on THEIR block?

RichM,

Don't be so hard on Nader2000. See, he voted his conscience once, and now stews in a cauldron of self-loathing because he believes that he is to blame for all the ills that have befallen us.

Some people can't live with the fact that sometimes conscientious actions don't win out, so they turn on anyone for having the courage to keep on keeping on.

P.S. Conscientious actions do win out - eventually. It just takes courage to march on despite the siren call to turn around and join the flock.

Locust quote: "....George the First One said that he would never apologize for anything the US did."

Can you believe the arrogance of George H.W. Bush!?! No wonder his son is such a jerk, and no wonder the U.S. is hated, with statements like that coming from an American president.

"Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time.

According to the US government, the Iranian airbus was mistakenly identified as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. According to the Iranian government, the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft." --- Wikipedia

hp====BINGO!!!! All the rational arguments in the world do not change the fact that the imperialist policies pursued by the USA will never be viewed as anything other than "interfering in other people's business," and our motives are anything but pure.

kulthur---some of us don't accept your frame...just because there has been criminal interfering in the region since we realized it's oil reserves, doesn't make it moral or right. You have allot of nerve condeming the immorality of ANY other country's govt! Surely, you don't still believe we are "impeccable warriors" out to free the world for democracy and human rights?? We haven't even got it here at home yet....ask the 5 million African Americans denied their right to vote in 2004. It's a farce played out for profits, here and everywhere within our military's reach.

Is it a choice at all? Seems more like an elaborate appointment disguised as choice. Most of us just aren't falling for it.

starofthesea,

I left a little card for your future son-in-law over at the Blackwater discussion where we the other day. I'm not sure whether you ever stopped by to pick it up?

Lately, I've been looking into this business with the Federal Reserve. I'm sure all of you have too. And the fact that no civilization based on paper money has ever lasted. Apparently, there are about maybe 300 individuals who actually control the world's wealth. Their authoritarian agenda is becoming more apparent all the time.

These individuals are somewhere on the globe with us at this very moment, and that has to be a concern for them too because there are more of us. Who are they? I'd like for them to step forwards and tell us exactly where they think this is going aside from these pathetic choices they've assigned us.

@kulthur: "Perhaps an air attack on military facilities in tandem with a revolutionary push"

You seem to be considering war on Iran because you dont like fundamentalist Muslim regimes. I dont like fundamentalist Christian regimes either. Consider making war on America's Bible Belt before your make war on another country.

The fundamentalism in Iran has occurred in response to continuous brutalization from the Western countries (mostly the USA). Further brutalization will not remove the religion, and it wont make them our good friends.

The answer is most definitely not war, even if the country that you are proposing to bomb is aggressive, which Iran is most certainly not. Iran has never attacked any country, nor has it threatened to attack any country. Please contrast that with the behavior of the US and Israel. Iran is under the strictest regime of inspections even though it has complied completely with the NNPT treaty. Please contrast that again, if you will, with the behavior of the US and Israel.

The "problem to be solved" does not exist any more than the problem of Saddam's WMD. I remember the politicians continually posturing about how to neutralize the "problem" of Saddam. What problem!?!? The biggest problem that the world has is the one posed by the US and Israel that think it is OK to invade on jumped up pretexts. And that is a REAL problem, not just an IMAGINARY one. Just how do you propose the world should deal with the problem of the US and Israel?

Hilarious Clinton is merely yet another prostitute to the criminals that temporarily have all the world and it´s peoples under their iron heel.

Only a fool (or a quasiliterate American consumer pretending to be a global citizen) would even bother to countenance anything other than her arrest, trial, conviction, and receipt of the full measure of impartial justice for her complicity in the crimes continuously being commited against the innocent for the material profits of the mass murdering criminals she represents.

As for the final question, "...how to deal with the problem..." that is simple:

Global citizen nonparticipation in ALL societal activities.

Goodbye dollar.

Goodbye corporate criminal influence.

Goodbye nationstate(s).

RichM-

>"Nader2000, why don't you just go away? Please? I'm asking you nicely."

You are an ass. I'll go away when you stop working for the Republicans.

>"...your tortured rationalizations for continuing to cling to Democrats."

The Democratic Party is the only route to power for the left in America. We need to change the Party, and we need to work within and through it. There is no other way. That is not a rationalization, it is reality.

It is not a matter of "continuing to cling" but of getting into the ring and fighting to win.

>"Bill bombed the former Yugoslavia for 2 solid months in 1999 — a country which had not threatened the US, or any other NATO country. Hillary was known to be wildly enthusiastic about this policy. Does that support your idea that she'd never start a war with Iran?"

It provides little evidence one way or the other. The two cases are not very comparable. Yugoslavia was conducting brutal ethnic cleansing. The bombing was contrary to international law but was carried out to coerce Milosevic into withdrawing from Kosovo and was halted as soon as he agreed. Many people who do not support the war in Iraq or an attack on Iran did support intervention in Yugoslavia. I am not one of them, but it was a difficult call for many people and the fact that Hillary may have supported this bombing campaign does show that she would be willing to use military power in some circumstances but does not show that she would start a war with Iran, which would be a much larger war and would have much higher risks and costs.

>"She voted to declare the IRG a "terrorist organization." The above article shows how she eagerly she regurgitates Bush admin unsubstantiated allegations about Iran."

The vote was egregious but it did not authorize a war, and it did up the pressure on Tehran, which does seem to be responding. The allegations are somewhat exaggerated and would not justify an attack on Iran, but they are hardly unsubstantiated.

>"tell us specifically which of these stupid and evil things she's courageously opposed, in the Senate."

Not much. As a senator, Hillary has compiled a record as a centrist, on which she plans to run for the office of President of the United States. As a woman, particularly one who is known to be quite liberal in her views and is utterly reviled by the Right, she has had to cultivate a hawkish image. If she wanted to be a senator the rest of her life, she could stand courageously against the wind, but she wants to be the first woman president. I'd rather have Kucinich, or Obama, but I'll take another Clinton over a Guiliani, or, to put it another way, I'll not take any responsibility for helping anyone to foist another Bush or Guiliani on the rest of the world.

There was nothing conscientious about helping Bush and there is nothing conscientious about helping the Republicans win yet again. I think people who do that as part of their pretend-we're-revolutionaries, pretend-we're-serious, pretend politics game have no conscience, or one that is seriously misshapen.

I don't see the Bush family's military age offspring serving in Iraq -- or Chelsey Clinton, or any of the members of Congress's children either.

Masters of War
by Bob Dylan

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

When Hillary starts bombing Iran, Nader2000 will be leading the cheers, explaining to everyone that it was necessary and realistic course of action, because if she didn't do it, then the Republicans would win in 2012.

Because the logic of his position is, that if she had to be a centrist as a Senator, then with more power and more at stake in maintaining power, she will have to be even more hawkish and move even further to the right.

But she won't be a Republican, so it doesn't matter how far to the right she moves, or how far right the Democratic Party moves, since the label is the only important thing.

And if one argues that she'll appoint liberal justices, just look at the latest from the 9th Circuit, considered the "most liberal" --

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-secrets17nov17,0,7326576.story

Nader2000 - "The Democratic Party is the only route to power for the left in America. We need to change the Party, and we need to work within and through it. There is no other way. That is not a rationalization, it is reality."

*Work within the party* is nothing more than code for *support Republicans who run as Democrats.* Leftists have bought into this nonsense since Bill Clinton ran in 1992, and now the conservative movement is more powerful than it's ever been. It's obvious that allowing conservatives to infiltrate the Democratic Party for the sake of power has been a disaster, and the only people still promoting this idea are fools and Republican moles.

There is only one option for leftists at this point, and really for any American who still believes in democracy:

VOTE AGAINST REPUBLICANS WHO RUN AS DEMOCRATS!

Even if you hate everything the GOP stands for, it's still better to put a Republican in office than give away your right to make a choice. Be patient, and at some point the Democratic Party will either respond to its own base of voters or else it will fold and some other party will rise in its place.

Thank you lillulu.

This article ignores the fundamental question of the situation, which is not whether Iran is attacking the U.S., but when will the U.S. end its occupation of the ME. We need to cease our aggression if we expect others to do the same. If we do not, the people of the ME will hopefully follow in the footsteps of our founding fathers and take whatever means necessary to repel the invader.

RichM,

Ok one thing for sure is that a day after I'm not going to go back and review all that was said and done above. I recall vaguely the flow of the discussion. And I will add that it's kind of a good idea to follow certain ideas through to a kind of "resolution" or whatever.

I will say, that it's tricky kind of confronting people's different attitudes in a productive fashion without being belligerent. And sometimes it's just hopeless in general.

This is such a weird thing because it's print. And for some reason that suits us, but it also really weeds out veracity from fake in an interesting way, and I don't know if either you or Nader can fault each other for being "fake."

But if there's something even remotely good or beneficial in some one, or in an idea, it's probably best to nurture that. Siouxrose is most excellent in that virtue while never calling attention to herself, and so moves mountains.

In the present, as compared to this the past, I am trying to deal with that "!@$#$$%" c-in-chimp. Now whether I'm right or wrong or effective or not, you know, i don't know.

but call me out of my mind I'll take a shot at it just to say I tried.

The core idiocy of RichM's rhetoric is the not the claim that the Democratic Party as it exists today fails to represent the far left wing. That is true of course and it will always be true BY DEFINITION. It is also irrelevant if your objective is to actually move American politics leftward. There are two ways to do that: 1) work outside the electoral process to educate, agitate, persuade, organize and confront, or 2) work within the electoral process to promote more left-leaning candidates and when possible win power for genuine progressives.

RichM's core idiocy is the notion that it is possible to do 2) through far-left independent candidacies and splinter parties that spoil, but can't win elections, and that it is impossible to do this through the Democratic Party. RichM and friends never explain why it should be possible for progressives to win general elections running as Greens, Socialists or whatever, yet impossible for them to win Democratic primary elections running as Democrats, despite the obvious fact that the Democratic primary voters are friendlier to progressives than the general electorate. They say the game is rigged because of all the money and endorsements from corporate Democrats, but this is just as true in the general election, or more so.

The claim that a third party (and in reality, it will be many little parties) is the route to power is so clearly wrong, and it has failed so many times, that one often hears these clowns come out and admit that they don't really care who wins the election. They just want to pretend that they are serious about something and they just want to pretend their hands are clean. They want their blessed purity. They say "It's my vote and I'll do what I want with it."

They claim to be acting out of conscience, but their conscience doesn't stop them from materially aiding the greatest of evils, with terrible consequences for millions of people in America and around the world. Their real motives are narcissism, ego inflation, and a little bit of power and action in their petty roles as the leadership of make-believe parties.

Ok,

you see, except for the three of us, there's no one else here. So the both of you just got to move on.

Here, Nader2000, I'm going to edit (briefly) your above comment so that for me, the only other remaining soul left on this planet here with you, it's readable.

"The core idiocy of RichM's rhetoric is the not the claim that the Democratic Party as it exists today fails to represent the far left wing. so on and so forth."

I can't agree with the core notion of your rhetoric, Rich, , here's why. - And so on proving your point.

Then I won't feel like I'm stuck here on this planet with the only thing playin' is O'Reilley or somethin'. Thanks.