kc July 23rd, 2008 10:01 pm, you should just let people think you are an idiot, instead of opening your keyboard and removing all doubt!

oceangrrl:
"I guess puerile and rude paternalisms are part of your values here? Nice. Obviously you can't keep personal judgments out of your arguments so I guess that makes me pretty suspicious about your intent. Is it to discuss opinions, or to put people down to bolster a fragile ego?"

Yes, I called you a sincere idiot. That was inappropriate. I apologize. I don't know you. What I meant was that your support for Obama is sincerely idiotic. Nothing personal, I am referring to your political beliefs.

I'm not sure how you would address someone defending Bush's policies (if you would say their opinions were idiotic, for example) but I don't put an Obama supporter too far from that category, because Obama's policies are not too far from Bush's.

But you were saying that I was trying to "bolster (my) fragile ego", so now we could go tit for tat with the insults, but that's pointless, right?

What I was trying to do is defend anyone's right to comment here.

You say you want to have a discussion, but all you are saying is to vote democrat, vote lesser evil, over and over again. You haven't addressed any of the more problematic elements of an Obama Presidency.

You are about to vote in favor of universal spying, an expanded military, an expanded war in Afghanistan, continued occupation of Iraq, a new war in Pakistan, a criminal partnership with Israel, the removal of the option for impeachment, increased usage of Special ops, torture, secret prisons, sanctions or war against Iran, a lack of universal health care, a continuation of NAFTA, and an expansion of nuclear power - to name just few of the crimes you are willing to endorse with your vote.

If you want to discuss, I would love to hear you defend these stances, or explain why they don't matter. But if pull out the tired old "McCain is creepy" defense, then you are simply dodging the issues, not discussing them.

Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars. Do not justify lies with any excuses. If the voter does not have principles, then do not expect the politcians to have any.

Oceangrrl, zzz doesn't want to discuss anything other than why you should not vote Democratic, and why you should waste your vote on an unelectable candidate and end up with McSame instead of Obama. Don't waste your time with him.

I have been so upset with Obama's remark about increasing troops in Afghanistan and staying there "until we win."...it seems that the accepted mainstream way of thinking is that Afghanistan is the "right" war and once again the Left, media and politicians are not questioning US involvement and Obama's warlike solutions..

read this article and judge for yourself...
m

Thursday, Jul. 17, 2008
How to Save Afghanistan
By RORY STEWART / KABUL
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1823753,00.html

The attacks of 9/11/2001 were planned by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

This is what Barack Obama said in 2002:

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Barack Obama, Chicago 2002

No one gets into whitey's house or congress unless they have kissed the right asses, Obama is no exception. What will happen in November, some call it an election, will be according to the whims of the nameless faceless ones who call the shots. Obama may well be their choice. He is certainly positioning himself accordingly, and who knows what goes on in secret.

The real issue, in my mind anyway, is...at what point (if ever) will citizens of the US reclaim (and in fact actually claim for the first time) self determination? What will it take? Those in power are making damned sure that, if there is claim made to democracy in the US, it will cost lives. The new crowd control weapons are pretty scary. The laws that have been passed to label dissidents (real patriots) as terrorists are pretty scary. The legal and illegal surveillance being carried out on US citizens is probably far more than most of us suspect.

So what's going to happen? We can't know, and I for one decry violence, but it seems that the government is making sure violence will occur by doing everything they can to frustrate people, drive them into desperation through economic policies (this is certainly not a new tactic) so they can bring out their mercenary army to quell the citizenry. We may, for a while, end up with an out and out totalitarian "secured" nation, but nothing lasts forever. Empires rise and then they fall. Time will tell.

The slow but steady reduction in the civil rights of Americans is exactly how the NAZI made the 1930's Germany into a fascist dictatorship.

It is happening here, too. Soon we may see a law titled "The Civil Rights Restoration Act," which will make it a crime to criticize any federal employee.

As long as the ruling elite stepped upon the rights of "others" we never said a word. But, now we have no one to stand up for us.

Welcome to the American Dream.

opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 3. Supreme Court. Want McCain picking the next 3 for life?
-lesser-evilism

This is a very weak argument because Democrats confirmed all the right wingers on the Supreme Court, including Roberts, the Chief Justice.

"His very first vote was for Condi Rice and it went down hill from there… He later voted for either Roberts or Alito (for the Supreme Court) and the outcry from his constituents seemed to give him pause on the other …."
http://www.americantorture.com/2008/05/want-to-end-torture-call-obama.html

opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 6. Intelligence. No need to elaborate.
-another weak argument. Obama is already swamped with over 300 advisers which he has been listening to and making bad, right wing decisions based on their counsel, like the FISA capitulation.

An Obama presidency will not be guided by intelligence, it will be guided by the interests of the ruling elites. I concede Obama will benefit the PTB (the powers that be) more than McCain. But is that a good thing?

Lesser of 2 blah, blahs, Nader, McKinney, SSDD on CD.

I wouldn't discount all those that push for now as the magic time for the Greens to rise from the ashes and take over the White House, even though they haven't even gotten a congressional seat yet, or the fact that Europe that has many greens in government, has never managed to manifest a green PM . Afterall, Cindy Sheehan posts here often, and I doubt she's a closet neocon, trying to split the left.

Let's say this. If Pew Research and Rasmussen don't have either Nader or McKinney at 33% or over by mid-October, can we all agree that Obama whether he is pandering or not will still be better for the world and cost it less lives in the next 4 years, and a veto proof dem congress might actually make some difference, even if it's not overnight utopia?

Or, if as I predict, that 99% of those left of the Clintons, either have never heard of McKinney, remember 2000 and say I'm not falling for Nader again, don't vote green, giving them a 1 or 2 percent chance in the election, will you "no lesser of 2 evils" types still vote 3rd party on principle when it will do nothing significant to help your cause?

I mean, that's the brass tacks of the issue. Will stumping for the greens on the net develop into a significant turn of the electoral tide, or if it doesn't, does it matter, and should conscience out way reality, or as many believe(or say they do)here that dems and reps are absolutely no different on every single issue.

I've never seen anyone here say that the dems are better than the dems ideology wise. That's a no brainer. I think everyone here agrees the Greens are the ideal. We don't need reminding.

How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site. I've never seen anyone swayed by anyone here anyway, so you're just wasting your bandwidth. I'll refrain from the Special Olympics analogy.

I'll go first. (as if I hadn't before) I wanted Kucinich, Nader would be great, but in order to have a decision in government, you have to win. I'd love to have Linda Fiorentino as my girlfriend too, but I'm not going to give up dating because that may never happen. (well, maybe that's a bad analogy, on the never dating part. recently separated and well, you get the point) Better said, most people don't give up relationships because they can't be with the person they find the most attractive in the whole wide world.

So from my point of view it's a gamble. 3 possibilities. Vote green for a win, has the worst odds, maybe 1 in a hundred, with the chance of splitting the left and giving the vote to the worst possible scenario. McCain, next lowest odds, and as previously stated worst possible outcome. Or a guy who was against Iraq from the beginning, and is even in the face of the elections and aipac is still harping diplomacy over isolation and possible use of force. He's not my first choice, but from what I can see the best.

That's it for the lesser of two evils vs. pragmatism argument. I may still comment on the crap of the day, but I'll leave this particular subjectiveness until after the election.

opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 8. Education.
-another red herring. Obama's better education will not be guiding his policy decisions and certainly not the desires of progressives, his decisions will be based on the desires of Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex.

It's amazed me how often Obama supporters accuse us who won't vote for him of being Repubs! I've NEVER EVER voted for a single Republican in my whole life!

I'm only interested in increasing the number of voters for alternative progressive candidates. Yes, I stupidly voted for Democrats in the past, as many here continue to do - but eventually I realized they aren't worthy of my vote. Even the few "good" ones (Kucinich, Feingold, Boxer, Mikulski, Wellstone - all with lots of flaws, and a few others) taught me that you can't ever change the system from within. "Winning" is not important - we get the same fascists corporate nonsense regardless - my home state is completely Democrat and yet nothing great ever gets done here, because the house speaker is all-powerful and he is a conservative Democrat.

We have two great candidates: McKinney and Nader for President!!! There are all sorts of other elections in which we can send a message, such as Cindy Sheehan. It's time to support alternative party candidates in all elections!

Umlaut July 24th, 2008 10:26 am writes: "...but I'm not going to give up dating because that may never happen."

-lesser-evilism, paternal-style

"How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site. I've never seen anyone swayed by anyone here anyway, so you're just wasting your bandwidth."

-I assume you read every thread and every article- right?
-How do you know if anyone has been swayed?

How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site.
-who are you to tell us what to do? Do you own this site?

Remedyps...Judaism is a religion, Israel is a country. Conflating the two is a mistake. I'm Jewish. I don't support many Israeli policies. Many Jews don't. I do support justice for Palestinians. Many Jews do, including Israelis. Fanning the flames of racism, anti-semitism, is not helpful.

tailcap July 24th, 2008 10:36 am

"Umlaut July 24th, 2008 10:26 am writes: "…but I'm not going to give up dating because that may never happen."

-lesser-evilism, paternal-style"

So I take you have never settled on anything less than optimum in your life, job, significant other?

"How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site. I've never seen anyone swayed by anyone here anyway, so you're just wasting your bandwidth."

-I assume you read every thread and every article- right?
-How do you know if anyone has been swayed?"

I've been here long before they even had postings, maybe 6 years. I read it nearly every day. I've never seen anyone say "I'm wrong, you're right now that you put it that way."

"How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site.
-who are you to tell us what to do? Do you own this site?"

Sorry, was supposed to be a question mark at the end, but the "How about" defiantly should make it quite evident that it is a proposal.

Your question makes it evident that you are against not using this as party propaganda site. That coupled with the amount of respect and compassion you display is eyebrow raising and sheds a little light to me on what the deal is here.

Umlaut July 24th, 2008 11:41 am writes "Your question makes it evident that you are against not using this as party propaganda site. That coupled with the amount of respect and compassion you display is eyebrow raising and sheds a little light to me on what the deal is here."

-number one, I am against you telling me what to do

-number two, I have a hell of a lot more compassion for the many, many thousands of people that will get killed under an Obama presidency than Obama and those supporting him.

-number three, lesser-evilism: Obama is unacceptable because he is pro-war.

Tell me this Umlut:
You believe in lesser-evilism which always leaves you screwed. If you were asked what you rather have, your wife raped on the hood of an old rusty, beat up, pickup truck with a gun rack and a Confederate Flag in the back window or have your wife raped in a comfy, brand new, shiny Lexus with a Bose surround-sound stereo? What would you say, "Gotta accept less than my ideal, rape her in the Lexus"? Sorry, I would say neither!

And here is another ridiculous, dumb-assed analogy from RichM- "The logic of Dem Party Apologists like opuleboy & MikeBinSC is that in an election where someone similiar to Daddy Bush is running against a GW Bush clone, we should vote for the Daddy Bush-like candidate."

Oh yes RichM, Obama and Bush Senior, just like two-peas-in-a-pod! You really are committed, or should be! Don't you need to be giving Rush a status report on the CD team of "Operation Chaos"?

Lyndon Johnson. I didn't live to regret it the rest of my life. I joined the anti-war movement instead. The anti-war movement, by the way, has no business supporting or not supporting candidates. It should remain an independent popular force to exert constant pressure on the U.S.government as long as we are at war, anywhere.
So, Lyndon Johnson...the alternative was unthinkable. So we thought.A vote for Nader doesn't put Nader in the White House. But it puts pressure on anyone running for office. It says, "This is where more and more Americans stand." And does anyone really think Ralph shouldn't be in the debates? To me, it's the only way the issues will get out in front of the rest of the country who are hearing only the mainstream media version of things.

Many folk wrote here concerning how to put pressure on Obama to deliver on his "promises". Nader in the debates will blow the issues wide open. How can this be a bad thing?

Suckerbeagle, I certainly am not against Nader and McKinney participating in the debates, in fact, I hope it happens, but don't hold your breath. But, if thet are included, don't expect the issues to be blown wide open. We had strong progressives in some of the primary debates, but only the progressive base was excited by it. The real problem is that the rest of the time, before and after, the progressive voice and ideas are squashed by the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex). We need a lot more media outlets for the progressive message, so the sheeple can hear it.

wow... still going?

The funny thing is is I think we all (for the most part) agree with where we want to be/go. In a world without war and domination where there is equitable access to resources in a sustainable system that respects the interconnectedness of all beings/animals/things and the ability to accept true shades of gray and pluralism. Where we are getting caught is how to accomplish this. There needs to be the strident extreme views on each side in order to move the mass in the middle.

From my perspective energy is much better spent looking at what you can accomplish realistically right now then how to do that. I would love to see McKinney in the White House.. could that possibly happen right now? No. Turn on the TV and look at what a majority of this country occupy their time and minds with. REALISTICALLY.. I think it is a huge leap if Obama were elected. Of course that is not going mute my personal vision for how I want the world to be or my disappointment with his right shifting... but at the same time when I go to work I wear a very conservative suit, cover my tatoos and play the professional game(I get a away with more that way too ;-) And before you jump down my throat about selling out I invite you to try to be a single mother secretary who can barely make ends meet, is constantly feeling guilty about leaving my son in school for such a long day and who can barely pay for childcare to go to work.

There is a limit to what you can do sometimes. I see progressive as being just... progressive. You have a horizon and you move as steadily (and mindfully/respectfully) toward that as best you can. I think Obama would be a good baby step in that direction. And, as my son says, "it would be cool to have a president who looked like me." That, from a social perspective in this racist country is a pretty big leap, IMHO.

It would be a lot more than a baby step Oceangrrl!
Good comment.

Tailcap - What the fuck do you want from people here? Is your sole mission in life to run down Obama? Got a problem with tall, intelligent black men? And did you make all these same noxious statements when Hillary was still in the race about her?

All of us here who are reluctantly supporting Obama have given our reasons. All of us would prefer someone else. What part of that don't you get? there will be two, and only two, viable candidates come November. Please explain how running down the best one incessantly helps anything.

Asked to list some differences between McCain and Obama, I did so. To deny those differences takes a rare dishonesty that I have only seen equaled at sites like Free Republic.

You even had to quibble about Obama being more intelligent.

You're a fool. And likely a Republican troll.

opeluboy July 24th, 2008 8:15 pm write "You're a fool. And likely a Republican troll."
-Rather than engage me in a debate with facts and attempt to refute what I say (which is actually the truth) you simply label me a "Republican troll" and a fool.

I am pretty sure you can do better than that. Is that the best you got? Weak.

Tailcap - You never debate, you just tear down Obama. You never answer anyone's questions, just make demands. Who the fuck do you think you are? You provide zero solutions. Your single goal is to dump on Obama. Well, have fun. Play this game with someone else. This is my last personal comment to you and will address none of yours in the future. I hope that will catch on with others here as well. You're a waste of space and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

opeluboy, I decided a while back to just identify tailcap and the others as brain-dead ditto-heads and move on. They are not capable of honest conversation.

Any Democratic Party supporter up to the task of apologizing for all the Democratic Party capitulations? Here is the debate: I make a case that progressives should not vote for Democrats because they have adopted the Republican agenda. My case is as follows:

The Democrats:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10)Lead by Obama want to increase the number of troops by 90,000
11)Lead by Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan instead of ending the warming
12)Lead by Obama has fine print weasel on his web site to keep many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq

That is my argument. Please refute it if you can. If you cannot defend the Democrats without resorting to lesser-evilsm and name-calling then you will have proved that you are intellectually incapable of debate and not worth the time of day.

That's okay, I just read the tail end of your statement where you say you will not address my questions. You just proved my point. Thanks, I will not waste my time on you either.

Democratic Party supporters are the ones that refuse to answer the issues I posted above. I have been posting it for over a month and NEVER has any Democratic Party supported answered it. Then they have the nerve to claim I never answer questions and I am not capable of honest conversation.

The fact of the matter is that it is Democratic Party supporters that are on the defensive. We read article, after article, after article exposing the Democrats for the traitors they are. In case you haven't noticed most of the bloggers here would more agree with my position than that of voting for Obama.

"a bit disheartening" – even the Brits couldn't have been able to top this gem of an understatement.

Any body who continues to pretend that Maliki is a real leader and not an appointed puppet and holds 'talks' inside the green zone can not be expected to do anything but maintain the status quo at best or escalate the conflict to include Iran.

I agree with safiyyah

"Let's see now? Obama is over in Israel saber rattling and threatening Iran, and some people here actually want to vote for the guy? You guys just don't get it, do you?

Since both corporate political parties rule together and have locked the system up to where we do not actually live in a functioning democracy today, who we 'vote' for is actually rather a mute point. We do not have democracy in this country at all, and we never will unless enough people get fed up enough with this dictatorship PERIOD. That has little to do with 'voting' though.

All the organizing for participation in these fake elections is organization that might well have been better spent in antiwar organizing. Don't you think?"

The rest of the comments are pure crap! There is no choice in this, or any recent election, your precious vote is worthless, we will end up with either a white version of Obama or a black version of McCain.

Vote anybody but the twp parties.

tailcap July 24th, 2008 1:17 pm

Well you really didn't address about half my statements and you're argument techniques are very familiar. I'm pretty sure I got you figured out.

i.e.

"You believe in lesser-evilism which always leaves you screwed. If you were asked what you rather have, your wife raped on the hood of an old rusty, beat up, pickup truck with a gun rack and a Confederate Flag in the back window or have your wife raped in a comfy, brand new, shiny Lexus with a Bose surround-sound stereo? What would you say, "Gotta accept less than my ideal, rape her in the Lexus"? Sorry, I would say neither!"

You're analogy does not even apply to reality.

History shows that mankind has slowly progressed. It also shows us to be quite horrible, but getting better, sometimes taking a step backwards.

But it takes steps forward. 150 years ago there were legal slaves on this planet in mass. 60 years ago there were men and women with less rights than others in this country. It was guess who that helped facilitate that? dems, and not for corporate control.

America got fat lazy stupid and con'd in the last 15 years and some of it was due to precedent setting corruption and the nerve to break the law in bold new ways with a stranglehold on both congress and the executive branch. Some dems that did stand up are gone and replaced with neocons, and many more may have feared the same if they didn't hold on and play it safe. Cleland took such a stance and look what happened to him. I personally would have done what Cleland did at the time, but in hindsite???? If he took a lesser stance, he might be in the fight today, now he is completely helpless. That might be moot as the dems are still nearly completely helpless. They fear their biggest weapon the filibuster will be used by the propaganda machine to make them look weak come election time. I agree with you, that that is crap when the poll show how many want us out of Iraq, but they are not taking chances.

Roosevelt busted corporate monopolies but he also took the rights and imprisoned over 100,000 americans? Probably a lot worse than any rights bush/cheney have done. But, was life better afterwards in this country and the world?

Kennedy rattled sabers, we all know the ills of the clinton era, Carter was probably the best president we ever had, i have to say.

But this flawless superhero idea of men and parties and idealism is something one who only knows life from movies and TV. It's a childish view of reality that rejects the lesser of two evils, because there is lots of evil out there and in all of us. There are no golden heroes out there and life moves forward slowly with a mix of dark and light and every shade in between, but things get slightly better and you're lucky if in your lifetime to see some good change, but nearly every generation has seen some.

But there's a light year's worth of difference between trying to compromise to stay in and win against those not playing fair and running a propaganda war on a dumbed down populace, vs. those that are the ones trying to destroy this country.

The only concession I make is that America and the world in general is getting dumber, and hopefully it was just a phase and life and hardship caused by this current time and regimes that dominate it will wake the inteligence again. If not, then we're really screwed.