Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFleecing What’s Left of the Treasury
The lobbyists and corporate lawyers, the heads of financial firms and the crooks who control Wall Street, all those who spent the last three decades assuring us that government was part of the problem and should get out of the way, are now busy looting the U.S. treasury. They are also working feverishly inside the Democratic and Republican parties to blunt any effective regulatory reform as they pass on their distressed assets to us. The process is stunning in its hubris and mendacity, and two of the most potent enablers of this unprecedented act of corporate welfare are John McCain and Barack Obama.
The federal government, reeling backward from the meltdown of financial markets, is now considering taking responsibility for the bad assets of numerous financial companies. But if that intervention does not include robust new mechanisms of regulation, accountability and control we will see nothing more than a massive taxpayer-funded bailout of stockholders and the financial industry.
The rhetoric of the two presidential candidates about the crisis has been filled with pious outrage about the abuses of Wall Street and short on actual solutions. John McCain and Barack Obama know, after all, who funds their campaigns. The financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama and $19.6 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the financial industry has come around to collect. Two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have been holding meetings with McCain and Obama's economic advisers. They are working with the campaigns to protect the unregulated power of financial industries and at the same time to shift bad debt to taxpayers. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Financial Services Roundtable, made up of the very banks and firms that got us into this mess, has developed draft legislation. The Roundtable has called a meeting this week with the chief executives of more than 50 banks, brokerages and insurers. The three-day meeting includes private, closed-door sessions on Thursday with Obama economic adviser Ian Soloman and McCain adviser Ike Brannon. Those hovering around Obama-economists like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Laura Tyson-bear as much responsibility for the dismantling of government regulation as those advising McCain.
If the financial-services industry is able to suck us dry, our assets, from our homes to our retirement investments, will continue to tumble. Taxes will go up. Jobs will be lost. The grim economic indicators will get worse. The dollar, which has already lost about a third of its value against the euro, will continue to plummet. The rate of foreclosures, one in every 416 U.S. households in August, will skyrocket. Consumer spending, the engine of the U.S. economy, will continue to decline. Industrial production, which has fallen for three consecutive quarters, will fall further. Unemployment, which shot up to 6.1 percent in August from 5.7 percent in July, will get worse. These tremors presage an earthquake.
Ralph Nader, who has spent his adult life battling corporations, understands more about the rise of the corporate state and the steady fleecing of American citizens by corporations than anyone else in the country. The core of his message is that Republicans and Democrats are hostage to corporate power.
Nader warned in a letter to Congress on July 23 that the federal government's bank insurance fund may be insufficient to handle the developing crisis in the banking industry. The letter was, at the time, greeted with indifference and ridicule. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., at a congressional hearing, mentioned the letter and assured those present that "Our banks are well capitalized, our deposit insurance fund is sound. There's absolutely no factual basis for saying that there's not money there to pay."
Two months later our federal bank insurance fund, which insures our bank deposits, is being swiftly emptied. The collapse of a huge commercial bank, such as Bank of America, which has assumed control of Merrill Lynch's losses with no real idea of how extensive these losses are, could see ordinary depositors wiped out.
Nader warned eight years ago that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were about to tank like the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and '90s. Because his warnings were ignored, taxpayers today face losing billions of dollars to cover these bad debts.
Nader, in a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, criticized the exorbitant salaries of government-sponsored enterprise executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert J. Levin and Timothy Howard. He noted in his letter that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security. A grave moral hazard was created by the accounting manipulations they sanctioned, Nader said. These manipulations benefited their personal wealth, yet there was no penalty for being caught.
Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt. He demands an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations. And he has called for aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.
"Given the contrast between the ‘free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street," Nader said in prepared remarks delivered to editors at The New York Times' Washington bureau.
Nader has come up with 10 market reforms that he says need to be implemented immediately along with any bailout. These reforms are:
- No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
- No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
- No golden parachutes or get-out-of-jail-free cards for guilty executives.
- No bailouts without public hearings.
- Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products, as is done in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
- Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below-median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to "rent to own" their homes at fair market value rates.
- Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15 to 20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
- Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as make sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the president and answerable to Congress.
- Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
- Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter casino-style capitalism.
You can vote for Obama or, if you are really into self-delusion, you can support McCain. But you owe it to yourself, even if you erroneously blame Nader for the election of George W. Bush, to remember these Nader reforms. Hold them up against the proposed reforms that will soon be issued by the McCain and Obama camps. If the Nader reforms are not adopted, if we bail out our corporate masters with hundreds of billions of tax dollars without instituting draconian market reform and launching criminal prosecution, we will be left to bear the cross of corporate malfeasance. We will pay for corporate crime. We will leave those who robbed us free to plunder.
178 Comments so far
Show AllSo is this the end? Act III? What is needed are some insider whistle-blowers?
With the stock going under and our economy slowing down, we need all the financial options we can get. Although there have been many plans to bail out banks and try to get the economy running, there isn’t any kind of relief coming for many months ahead of us. We, as Americans, should try and start to get on our feet without the help of the government. When something unexpected arises, such as a flat tire or little Jimmy needing stitches, there should be a valid, quick, easy, and affordable option for anyone who would need temporary relief without the lending of taxpayers money. The payday loan industry is a great way to try and get that temporary relief we all have been searching for. They can provide the satisfaction that you need quickly, providing such perks as online application so you can get one anywhere, anytime, with direct deposit, so when you are quickly approved, you can use the money in a matter of hours. They work with you and the amount that you get paid, so you don’t have to worry about getting in over your head.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Why do you only post this dreck on dead threads?
I liked this article so much that I scalped it for a letter to my Kansas delegation, Sens. Pat Roberts & Brownback (I know, I know) and Rep. Jerry Moran. Here is what I sent:
Dear Mr. Roberts/brownback/moran,
I know that the Congress is grappling with the parameters of the bail-out for the corporate banking entities. While I personally believe that some type of bail out is called for, I hope that you will remember to act in the best interests of the people, something Congress has strayed from of late. In Chris Hedges' article "Fleecing What's Left of the Treasury" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/22-3 he cites, 10 items that Ralph Nader calls for as conditions of the bail-out. Ralph Nader is never stronger in his role as an important American than when he is advocating for the rights of the (government) consumer. I would enjoin you to take these 10 suggestions seriously as you endeavour to help not just the rich elites who have callously "harvested" the American public but also the everyman, which is after all, your constituency.
Nader has come up with 10 market reforms that he says need to be implemented immediately along with any bailout. These reforms are:
No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
No golden parachutes or get-out-of-jail-free cards for guilty executives.
No bailouts without public hearings.
Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products, as is done in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below-median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to "rent to own" their homes at fair market value rates.
Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15 to 20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as make sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the president and answerable to Congress.
Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter casino-style capitalism.
As you solve this complex problem do not forget those of us who are your constituents, even though we are not your richest source of campaign funds.
check this out! seems like both obama and mccain might skip the bailout vote! incredible.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/09/profiles-in-cou.html
call some of those numbers up too! we need to keep those phones ringing off the hook regarding the bailout plan.
updated: i only got through the mccain and feingold camp. all of the other numbers had voice mail full and would not record another.... i actually got through to a few people on the mccain end... however, one guy seemed to not have a clue as to want plan mccain would support and if there is any corporate accountability, etc. all he said was that mccain didn't support the bailout plan at taxpayer expense. he didn't address the no-show issue on the vote of course. he finally forwarded me to someone else when he realized he just couldn't answer much of anything. got an answering machine and left a message there.
gracefulswan
I think the link is quite telling in demonstrating that like the average politician, both Obama and McCain are quite good at making speeches claiming that they are helping the American people but when it comes to actually doing so they may be nowhere to be found. I think this is especially damning of Obama since he has always claimed, or at least given the impression, that he will be doing things differently than McCain and the status quo because he is the [alleged] agent of hope and change. More evidence, apparently, that this, to quote the line from the classic film noir The Maltese Falcon, is the stuff that dreams are made of.
Err-oll
Of course you find (whatever the discussion of the moment is) "especially damning of Obama". You find everything "especially damning of Obama". If he won the Nobel Oeace Prize you'd find it "especially damning of Obama".
You're a one note samba.
Most posts on this thread give the impression that Chris Hedges held only Obama up for criticism. In fact, his article aimed at "The rhetoric of the two presidential candidates about the crisis..." Why did could McCain get a pass here?
Anyway, about Nader. Imagine he offered Obama a deal: adopt my 10 market reforms and I'll swing my support your way. If the election is really tight, a swing vote from Naderites might be crucial for the Democrats.
I've always admired Nader, a Cassandra and a true American hero, but it's clear that unless his party could elect not just one but several representatives, it could not influence Congress one whit. And we know that can't happen. So let's make a deal.
wsws.org site
A commenter at Crooks and Liars [a liberal but very pro-Obama web site- now there is a true oxymoron, as George Carlin might have said- liberal yet pro-Obama] who, when I mentioned that Obama did not discount keeping Paulson in his administration, said that Paulson had turned it down. That, of course, does nothing to negate the fact that Obama had still expressed interest in the Treasury Secretary and the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. It also does nothing to substantiate Obama's claim that he is [allegedly] an agent of change.
The new Camelot under an Obama Presidency:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
As outrageous as this brazen theft from American citizens is, the crooks in charge had already taken something far more precious: our Constitutional rights. I have no doubt that the response to the former theft - from Congress, craven acquiescence and collusion, and from the people, quiet indifference - emboldened the thieves to proceed with the monetary theft.
Just as a "clue" as to where Barack Obama is in all this...
Does anyone recall who Obama appointed as his chief economic advisor?
Answer: Josh Furman.
Josh Furman (note: a former *Clinton administration* official) is a defender of Walmart's. See the following, "Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy" -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
In 2005, Furman published a 16-page paper titled, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story."
In short, Josh Furman -- Barack Obama's chief economic advisor -- believes that Walmart's is good for America.
Would this be the same Barack Obama who, during the primaries, was highly *critical* of WalMart's; pointing out that Hillary Clinton was on Walmart's board of directors for six years.
This primary-season critique of Walmart's got Obama a lot of votes. It made a lot of people think that Obama was a progressive, that he would fight for the economic interests of average working Americans.
Then, guess what?
Days after Obama captured the nomination, he lurched to the right. Obama lurched to the right:
-- On Iraq -- going from saying during the primaries "I'll withdraw US troops in 16-months" to *after* the primaries saying: "I'll defer to the commanders in the field."
-- On Afghanistan -- calling for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan (just like Bush and McCain have done).
-- On voting for the F.I.S.A. bill, after vowing not to.
-- And on appointing Josh Furman, a Walmart's defender, as his top economic advisor.
To name just a *few* of Obama's rightward leanings.
If Obama is elected, expect more of the same. More lying, more deception, more subservience to Corporate America.
Quoting from a recent article by Donna Volatile:
"What is most stunning about delusional Obama supporters is, when confronted by the aforementioned facts about Obama, they counter with this inane idea that Obama is only 'saying' these things, he doesn't really mean them, it's only to get elected and once he gets elected the true altruistic essence of the man will save us all from tyranny! (Can we say reality check?!)
"Their indefensible support of this double talker is beyond comprehension. ...
"If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then do VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the 'lesser of two-evils' threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before. ... From 'hope and help is on the way' Kerry to Obama's constant harping on 'Change We Can Believe In', you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those diehard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall ... YOU are the problem. ...
"And another thing ... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!"
"This is your wake up call!"
(Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's)
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
As for "another war in the making," obviously Ms. Volatile means Iran. But, in fact, Barack Obama supports five -- count 'em *five* -- wars:
1.) He wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
2.) Several months ago, along with his fellow Democratic Senators, he gave George Bush the go-ahead to invade Iran. ("The Senate to George Bush: "If you invade Iran, we won't object.")
3.) Barack Obama is willing to invade Pakistan. Indeed, the invasion has already begun -- with not a peep from former peace candidate Obama.
4.) During the primaries Obama vowed to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within 16 months. However, *after* the primaries, in a July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not. ... Meaning: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.
5.) And what's the *fifth* war Obama supports? ... Obama supports the war against the middle class.
Because for all of his rhetoric, Barack Obama, like the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party, has *enabled* the Bush Administration to run roughshod over the middle class and the poor.
The only reason Bush and Company do what they do is because they know that the Democratic Party won't object.
The Democrats don't want to impeach Bush because they know that they are just as guilty as the Republicans. For imperialist wars, for financial meltdowns, for class warfare.
It will only end when you decide to end it. Vote your conscience ... for a change.
Wow, World Socialists don't like a U.S. Presidential candidate.
I am shocked.
So who do world socialists support in the U.S. Presidential election?
I mean when they're not busy attacking Obama.
Excellent and persuasive comments and links demonstrating how Obama's mantra that he is an agent of hope and change is simply a case of smoke and mirrors to disguise how much of a fraud he truly is. It should also be pointed out that in an interview that Obama gave to the N.Y. Times last Saturday, Obama said that "he does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson." As well he should since Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs which was the number-one donor to Obama's campaign. The agent of change is looking more and more like the agent of the status quo.
.
Absolutely correct, Errol.
I hadn't heard about retaining Paulson in an Obama Administration. I'll have to add that to my 17, Now "18 Reasons Not To Vote for Obama."
I did, however, read that Obama is seriously thinking about retaining (are you sitting down, Errol?) -- Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of Defense!
In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
The "Times of London" article goes on to say:
"Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents. ...
"Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be 'responsible' in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance."
"Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington, a foreign policy adviser to Obama, said: “Robert Gates is one of the best defence secretaries we have had in a long time and it makes a lot of sense to keep him.”"
Click here for the entire article, "Barack Obama May Recruit Defence Chief Robert Gates" -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4232070.ece
If you want to know who the *real* Barack Obama is, ignore his rhetoric and look at his record.
Here's a good place to start -- "The Obama Craze, Count Me Out," by Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's runing mate -- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/topstory.html
Vote for Ralph Nader. Who else has the experience he does battling Corporate America?
Or else vote for Cynthia McKinney.
Or else vote for whatever socialist gets on your ballot.
Quite simply, vote your conscience.
Meanwhile, think of the following as a do-able goal:
Election Day Results
Obama or McCain -- 21%
McCain or Obama -- 19%
Nader and all progressives -- 10%
Not voting -- 50%
Note: In an given presidential election, 45-50% of the eligible voters *don't* vote.
Do you think the above Election Day results are possible? ... I do.
Would they shake up the political establishemnt? ... You bet they would!
Do you think *60%* of the electorate NOT supporting the Democratic/Republican duopoly would make a difference? ... Count on it!
Sioux Rose
SHARKIE: You're seeing into the future, and I agree with your assessment.
So we've got "Eminent Domain" which effectively means your property isn't really yours. Habeas Corpus is iffy at best. Dissent can be used as grounds for "terrorism." The votes are done on bogus electronic machines that are easily hacked into for "anticipated results." And now those NOT responsible for Wall St playing cards like Casino blackjack are expected (without consent) to pay.
It is beginning to feel more and more like Nazi Germany, apart from certain cultural differences. When the $700 billion is looted to place a finger in a dam that has to break, what will they come for next? Will they, like the nazis, help themselves to our paintings? A family fur coat? The gold in our teeth? "It Can't Happen Here," or so we thought...
"'It Can't Happen Here,' or so we thought..."
And so the Germans thought. I've read that "It can't happen in the land of Kant" was a popular expression in the days leading up to Nazi rule.
I like this part:
John McCain and Barack Obama know, after all, who funds their campaigns. The financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama and $19.6 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the financial industry has come around to collect. Two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have been holding meetings with McCain and Obama's economic advisers. They are working with the campaigns to protect the unregulated power of financial industries and at the same time to shift bad debt to taxpayers.
Unspun donation facts: www.OpenSecrets.org (The Center for Responsive Politics)
coyote says, get your nose out of Barak's rear end.
Coyote, with your name I would have though you'd think that was just a way of socializing.
Still, much better than your usual screed.
ctrl, be advised there is a 't' after though: it ought to look like this, "though"[t]. Nevertheless, speaking of screeds one would think you might be able to come up with some new material besides the normal redundancy of mimicking back whatever it is you hear on this site by plagiarizing other people. Not very original, but speaks volumes about a blind mind set as to why you support Obama.
One of these days you might actually start to do some thinking on your own; when that happens a new and wonderful world will open the closed and decrepit, cob web filled rooms, where you live out your narrow and insignificant life. Why not let some fresh air in, not predicated on what some marketing guru tells you is true about Obama or McCain, but what the Cat's record tells you?
What you people hate is any truly free being not marching lock step in your self contained dysfunctions.
Ya know Coyote, the more scat you drop, the more I think you're aptly named.
Coyote
Well stated. The situation with our Obama fanatic is reminiscent of the scene in the classic film Twelve Angry Men when Henry Fonda's character, juror #8, attempts to comfort the eldest juror, #9, by telling him that it is useless attempting to speak rationally to Jack Wardens's character, juror #7, as when juror #8 tells the eldest juror concerning juror #7: "He can't hear you. He never will."
Gee Error-ll, you got me so upset I'm getting really sorry I caught your lie about Obama's campaign donors.
Who would have thought you'd get all hot and bothered about it?
Out of control-z
Lie? I hardly think that Chris Hedges's statement, which links directly to the Center for Responsible Politics, which states that "the financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama", is a, to use what appears to be your favorite word, a lie. You hope that no one pays any attention to the fact that, as the Center points out, that "Obama's list of bundlers includes several executives at Citigroup, who together have raised between $600,000 and $1.5 million. Executives at Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs [which, despite Out of control-z's belief,, has been Obama's number one contributor to his campaign. This is also the same Goldman Sachs which hired Henry Paulson as its CEO and whom Obama had expressed an interest in retaining for his administration] are also in the mix." Obama and his people want the American public to think that Obama gets all his money from small donations but as we see, this obviously is not true. But then your reaction is totally understandable as one realizes that there can be no rational discussion with Obamamaniacs since they inevitably tend to think with their hearts and not with their heads. Obama the [alleged] populist is more like Obama the corporatist.
Err-oll
The lie I was referring to was your posting of this:
"Last January, Obama declared that "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." Obama's rhetoric rings false when one discovers that the Centre for Responsive Politics has found out that the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/19-5
It has no basis in fact or in the figures on OpenSecrets.org
Quit pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Mr. out of control-z
Try scrolling down approximately seven or eight paragraphs just south of the dove's wing [which is rather ironic considering the hawkishness of Barack Obama]on the left hand side of the page where the paragraph begins appropriately with "The Center for Responsible Politics..." You will then find Pam Martens, investigative reporter for the Black Agenda Report, stating, once again, that the top five contributors to Obama's campaign- WHEN ONE LINKS to THE CENTER'S WEB SITE-are indeed registered lobbyists. If you actually read further into the article, you will also see how Ms. Martens connects your hero to the big corporations while also pointing out how Obama has abandoned the poor and working class in favor of rubbing elbows with the power elite.
I have no doubt that you will once again attempt to furiously spin this by claiming that your savior is as pure as the driven snow, despite all evidence to the contrary. As for me and others on this blog, we realize that Obama is just as ambitious and as a consequence, just as corrupt, if not legally then certainly morally, as any other politician, whether it be a Democrat or a Republican.
Err-oll
I followed the link you provided in the link below. It had nothing that supported your claim. It was a generic page on the website.
Of copurse I had to wade through an anti-Obama attack piece to get to the link.
When are you going to admit you'll say anything to convince people to vote for anyone but Obama?
Troll.
Erroll, like her or his savior, cntl is a master obfuscation. She posts here not to provide insight, but rather to join in the cacophony of bombast to spin Obama into the savior of the world. These Cat's live by a certain unassailable orthodoxy that if challenged, repudiated, or interpreted in other contexts of value, immediately dust off their one size fits all dogma, puff up their chest, and then cast as many dysfunctional diversions intended to distort any legitimate critique showing how corporate money rules the game. As you have aptly demonstrated with facts Obama has forfeited any claim to independence. Nice job in challenging Obama's disciples. Note how they never challenge or rebut the context of Hedges article but instead engage in personal attacks. What is commonly referred to as an empty pant suit.
Coyote
I entirely agree. People like our Obama fanatic will never admit that, as I stated earlier, politicians like Obama will say or do anything in order to achieve power. As Pam Marten's article accurately demonstrates, Obama's hands are soiled with the stench of corporate influence, such as Obama's ties to Goldman Sachs [Obama's number-one donor]whose former CEO happened to be Henry Paulson. Just as egregiously are Obama's militant statements in which Obama has proven to be just as much of a warmonger as McCain. But the followers of Obama will never admit that these thing are true of their candidate because they "hope" that he "might" do the right thing, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Coyote sez: "Is there a broken record in here?"
This is the link that I mistakenly left out in the above comment.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=1
Thanks for the link, speaks volumes. The proof is in the pudding. Obama has been feeding off the bottom of the barrel for a very long time. Ever wonder what that must taste like? Hope he has not got any on either of his precious darlings! (Where is the funny smiley thing when you need it.)
What about all the dough in the State Treasuries that these bandits haven't quite yet figured out how to get their mitts on?
What crisis? Where's the crisis?
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-105a.pdf
Alan MacDonald
Chris, what we're facing is a far bigger battle than the fleecing of this supposed 'bailout'.
What we are facing is the final showdown between the economic empire of ruling-elite financial royalists against the very concept of America's most innovative contribution to the world: democracy --- vs. the chance, with our courage, to finally complete the American Revolution against the rule of empire in all aspects of our lives and liberty.
Today we have the opportunity of finally achieving the successful completion of the American Revolution; where the triumph of real democracy, rather than empire, in how men govern themselves, addresses the inexorably combined power of our indivisible political economy.
The good news of this epic crisis is that the real American innovation of democracy will finally (after 232 years) be applied to both the realms of political and economic self-governance, rather than only to the political sphere --- because empire, left alone in the economic sphere, has been perverting and trying to overthrow democracy since 1776.
This is not a choice between 'free market democracy' (which is only a PR lie told by the 'corporatist Empire') and the scare term of 'socialism' --- but rather the long-delayed, final battle of the American Revolution, between democratic self-governance in the unified political economy of our country, or an economic empire of their corporatist/fascist elite metastasizing from the economic realm to the political realm and the whole of our society.
Meanwhile, while you argue over angels and pins, back in the real world, as reported on "Democracy Now" yesterday:
"Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations. The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds."
Omama, Nader, seems like a silly debate that pales in comparison.
I didn't see any references to the specific Army Times article in Democracy Now article (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/22/headlines#10, "Army Unit to Deploy in October for Domestic Operations"), and a search of The Army Times didn't turn up anything. Do you have a reference to the original Army Times article?
The debate as I see it is between integrity vs dishonesty and corruption. But thanks for pointing that out. If Obama is elected it will be interesting to see if he uses such tactics to suppress the people. Time will tell.
Nice to see that group think is back in fashion. Is this a new all girl band? Or just a light weight tag team? Well, we all know "little girls" run in packs, don't we. The best belly laugh Ive had in a month or so.
Hedges always hits the mark. Another great article, but apparently not acknowledged by the Obama Herd marching lock step with his corruption.
Coyote sez: "Is there a broken record in here?"
control z, wanna laugh?
"with Obama there's the chance of some fresh start"
Quote by Ralph Nader, from WSJ article 5/31/08. Ralph then tied his comment into Kennedy and the Peace Corp.
Maybe Nader does not read these threads. HE sees a DIFFERENCE between Obama and McCain.
Funny, huh?
translucent September 23rd, 2008 12:35 am
"Maybe Nader does not read these threads. HE sees a DIFFERENCE between Obama and McCain."
Actually he was comparing Obama to Hillary Clinton, not John McCain
Here is the whole quote;
Mr. Nader is clear that he prefers Mr. Obama to Hillary Clinton. "With her, we'll just get what Bill gave us. I think she's like Bill Clinton. With Obama, there's the possibility of some fresh start, just like Kennedy did the Peace Corps. You see, when Obama got out of Harvard Law School, he went to work for a short period with a group I started in New York, the New York Public Interest Research Group. Then he went and did neighborhood work in Chicago, so it's not like he's coming off some corporate mountain.
But Nader also said this;
"But he's (Obama) made up his mind to be a very conciliatory, concessionary, adaptive politician to the reality of corporate power. And people like him are told, 'Look, if you don't adhere to certain parameters and expectations, you're going to have a hard time winning any nomination or election.' And Obama's made his peace with that."
And here is what the corporations say about Obama;
"Obama's taking large money from the securities industry, the health insurance industry . . . I've gotten used to this ritual where the companies give Democrats this leeway, and say, 'Well, Obama's gotta say that stuff, but he'll come around. There's no way he'll touch Nafta or touch the WTO.'"
Lobo Gris
translucent
That is a good one. I tracked down the source. The exact Nader quote is:
"With Obama, there's the possibility of some fresh start, just like Kennedy did the Peace Corps. You see, when Obama got out of Harvard Law School, he went to work for a short period with a group I started in New York, the New York Public Interest Research Group. Then he went and did neighborhood work in Chicago, so it's not like he's coming off some corporate mountain."
But it's part of a much larger interview.
Nader continued: "But he's made up his mind to be a very conciliatory, concessionary, adaptive politician to the reality of corporate power. And people like him are told, 'Look, if you don't adhere to certain parameters and expectations, you're going to have a hard time winning any nomination or election.' And Obama's made his peace with that."
The whole piece is available at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121218925042534249.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
The interview had another bit that is funny, considering how many people repeat Nader's tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee description of the republican and democratic parties:
"It's been a couple of days since Mr. Nader – again an independent candidate for president in this year's election – demanded the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. "You must be the only man in America," I say to him, "who has called for the impeachment of Bush and Bill Clinton."
Mr. Nader laughs, his face breaking briefly into good cheer. "I'm a little bit more insistent with Bush and Cheney. I think Clinton was terrible. But there's no comparison between him and the more clinical high crimes and misdemeanors of Bush."
Would Al Gore have made a better president than George Bush? "Yes," says Mr. Nader, looking, for all the world, as if I'd asked him the silliest question. "Bush is the worst president we've ever had – in terms of damage to the nation, and incapacity."
ctrl-z September 23rd, 2008 1:43 am
"Would Al Gore have made a better president than George Bush? "Yes," says Mr. Nader, looking, for all the world, as if I'd asked him the silliest question. "Bush is the worst president we've ever had – in terms of damage to the nation, and incapacity."
There is no doubt that Al Gore would have made a better president than George Bush, however Al Gore and George Bush are not running for office this election cycle.
Lobo Gris
ctrl-z; Nader clearly concedes the two parties are different in those last two paragraphs.
And, Ralph kindly concedes that the Democrats are the preferable of the two parties.
Ralph will vote for Obama, and he wants all his supporters to as well.
translucent September 23rd, 2008 1:58 am
"ctrl-z; Nader clearly concedes the two parties are different in those last two paragraphs."
No he doesn't and the last two paragraphs are quoted in their entirety below.
And, Ralph kindly concedes that the Democrats are the preferable of the two parties.
He doesn't do that either
Ralph will vote for Obama, and he wants all his supporters to as well."
He absolutely says no such thing. Now you've gone from cherry picking a few isolated comments from the interview to outright lying.
Here are the last two paragraphs from that interview;
"I don't complain much publicly. I've been told by a lot of the television bookers around the country, 'Ralph, they don't like you.' So the door is shut. But I say to myself, 'Should we close down and go to Monterey and watch the whales?' No. Better to fight when you have a small chance, than to fight later when you have no chance at all."
Those stirring last words are from Winston Churchill, and Mr. Nader quotes the old conservative with relish – even though his favorite British politician, he tells me, is Aneurin Bevan, the man who gave Britain its National Health Service after World War II. Bevan and Churchill were from different planets, and we chuckle at the incongruity of Mr. Nader's rhetorical inspiration. Then we rise slowly from our table and leave – I for my hotel room in Georgetown, and he for the battle that never ends."
I encourage all to read the entire article;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121218925042534249.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris: Hello, And I commend you for your civil manner of disagreeing.
Particularly given a misunderstanding. Yes I 'cherry picked' what Ralph said. Fair play, I did not misquote him.
But when I said Nader would vote for Obama and urged his supporters to I was not lying.
It was an attempt at levity. Rather blatant I thought.
In any case I'm not a liar. Although I'm not above a little humor now and then.
With Respect? Absolutely.
Lobo Gris sez: "I encourage all to read the entire article" and posted the link (the same one I included in my post on the interview).
As a result of my posting the link he was able to do just what he suggests - he read the whole article. Sure, he could have tried to track it down, but searches like that are frequently a waste of time.
My point?
If you're citing a statistic (like donation amounts Error-ll) link.
If you're quoting someone, link.
It helps keep everything above board.
-------------------------------
BTW Lobo the last two paragraphs translucent referred to weren't 'the' last two paragraphs in the article but 'those' last two paragraphs I quoted. If you're going to correct someone try to make sure you've read what they wrote.
Gotta love it. Bet they're gonna scream.
BTW, I've also enjoyed reading your other posts.
We need to take back our Republic!
This mess makes me think of a quote from the Matrix: "Buckle your seatbelt Dorothy, cause Kansas is going bye bye..." Cipher
i would be much more comfortable about nader's investments if i knew they were with socially responsible funds. after all, we do have a choice where to invest - it doesn't have to be in firearms, tobacco, and war making.
mckinnon118 September 22nd, 2008 10:49 pm
"i would be much more comfortable about nader's investments if i knew they were with socially responsible funds. after all, we do have a choice where to invest - it doesn't have to be in firearms, tobacco, and war making."
And your source that Nader is invested in firearms, tobacco, and war making?
Lobo Gris
first off, obama is a psyop aimed at deluding the american people into thinking that their vote has some meaning
as chomsky says, they need to create a sense of contest as part of the illusion
as the author notes:
"The process is stunning in its hubris and mendacity"
hubris: the flaw that leads to the downfall of the tragic hero
mendacity: a lie
so the imperial empire has been felled by a flaw based on a pack of lies
sounds about right
what is the lie?
is that the one about the whole democracy thing
or is it the one about being special
it could the whole we are good thing
the god loves us one is a suspect here
or is it: D_all of the above
seems to me that allowing this rip off to go forward is about the dumbest thing i ever heard
it speaks volumes about the mentality of the american public and its mindset
these guys steal all the money, send your jobs overseas, get your kids killed and maimed in one endless intervention after another (all of them illegal), deny you health care, allow the invasion of 50 million aliens to undermine the few jobs that are left
now they want an unshakable 700 billion dollar line of credit - which could be as much as hundreds of trillions of liability
no one knows what the commitment is - yet it can't be reversed no matter what
not being a banker you can imagine how surprised i was to read today that although the current gdp of the planet is around 50 trillion - the derivative markets are leveraged in the amount of 500 trillion
wow
i wouldn't be surprised if they demand payment in euros
forget nader for the moment - the public should not sit back and let this happen
while you are at in - finally taking up your responsibilities as free citizens - demand a 99% defunding of the military death machine
you all have killed enough people - congrats it is more than any other tyrannical fascist government in the entire history of the world
enough already
time to stand down and stand up
last chance
ps: if you want to know why you all are always at war here is a short read:
http://www.bigeye.com/bankers_make_war.htm
cheers, b
We can all help put Ralph Nader in the oval orifice and after that watch him put the full swing of the railroad tie upside the head of the capitalist beast. Are we ready to rock and roll, election day, people?
"We can all help put Ralph Nader in the oval orifice... "
Yeah, that'll happen.
The standard of living will decline. Without a bail out everyone will share the pain. With the bail out only the common people will suffer and they will suffer more. Let them fail, money is NOT disappearing, it is simply changing hands away from the ones who made this mess. What could be fairer? Some innocents will get caught in this, that's true, but that is going to happen anyway. LET THEM FAIL.Otherwise only the innocent will pay.................lizard
The wheels are coming off. Bail out or not, the ship is going aground. This opens up a window of opportunity. With or without a bail out the next president will be heading a disaster. How the people will react to this disaster will determine the future. Neither McCain nor Obama can fix this. Only someone like Nader can help a little but he won't be elected. Vote for Nader to give him the most exposure possible so that the people will have something to look at when they face disaster. Build up the third option now in preparation for the next election. lizard
There could very well be a third party in 2012, but it won't be any of the third parties now in operation in my opinion.
Precisely why my vote will again go to Nader: Obama like McCain and the imbecile currently running the country are all in bed with the corporate scum.
Coyote sez: "Is there a broken record in here?"
Notice who Obama is listening to for advice on this one: Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, two of the most extreme free market/deregulators you can find.
On this issue, as on so many others, there really is not a dime's worth of difference between the corporate backed Obama and the corporate backed McCain; maybe not even a penny.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
nadervoter, coincidentally I just now on another thread noted this excerpt from Robert Scheer's appearance on "Democracy Now" today: "... And then, in 2000, hours before the Christmas break, [Phil] Gramm introduced legislation. [...] they allowed these mergers, and as a result, they could buy insurance on it, they could do these swaps, they could do what they call hybrid instruments. And it is legislation that was never discussed, was—never had hearings or anything, says that all of this stuff is exempted from all previous regulation. The SEC cannot regulate it, the Commodity Futures Board cannot regulate it.
So they gave these institutions, of which Goldman Sachs was critical—so was Citigroup, where Robert Rubin, who was Clinton’s Treasury secretary, he had also come from Goldman Sachs. And, by the way, even though this is Republican-led, there were plenty of Democrats, in fact, a majority of Democrats, who voted for this. And Robert Rubin, who unfortunately is advising Barack Obama—I don’t know how this guy can wake up and—you know, and not be embarrassed and how he can appear on television—and Lawrence Summers, these are the two guys in the Clinton administration who teamed up with Phil Gramm to pass that atrocious legislation..."
My immense respect for people like Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader comes from how hard they must work to retain their freedom to speak truth to power, the power of institutional corporate capitalism.
The problem with U.S. politicians is that to get elected and re-elected, they must bow to the rule of U.S. corporate capitalism. They then are no longer free to think great thoughts.
The majority of U.S. citizens are also not free to think great thoughts because they are so indoctrinated by American culture. The U.S. is a culture of capitalistic propaganda, military propaganda, the illusions of American exceptionalism, radical individualism, religious patriotism, and the witchcraft of Madison Avenue that is designed to alter human consciousness for the benifit of the ruling capitalists.
So who is left? Only those who make the time to think and work outside the box of American culture. These are the people who are intuitively blessed to see the social tragedy of American culture and the injustices of corporate capitalism itself.
For those of us who are left (is this a pun?) we must join together in solidarity to educate ourselves and other inclined activists to the intrinsic injustices of corporate capitalism and the need for racical social change. Americans as a whole refuse to educate themselves, and that is why the radicals must work to educate more radicals.
I believe some of us recognize the source of this power is in the Internet.
It is simply not enough. It may pacify, allow communication, etc.
The net has been around awhile now. What has really changed? We end up with alot more people donating money onlines. But, we end up with the same old corporate candidates.
Direct action is necessary.
The 700 billion dollar Trojan horse has been pulled up to the Wall street gates.
Will the congress obey the constitution or not.
Its hard to believe that Republicans would be stead fast against this rescue.
They actually are trying to blame Democrats for easing regulation which allowed these Banking and Corporate fat cats to prey on the American public's wallet.
The FEDs motto ,100 % guarantee or your money back.
Like , how many left wing liberals do you know run large banks?
Well , to add insult to injury, Republicans want to blame the American public for being irresponsible for taking the loans.
And now, Republicans would have you believe that they are against the bail out.
If only Shakespeare were alive.What folly wouldst he derive from our elected officials.
" Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. "
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
There was plenty of money for the Military industrial Complex for two illegal wars against two sovereign nations.
Maybe there wont be enough left over after the bail out, hey Republicans ,your other fat cat buddy's are calling for your help.
BornFreeMen
It's nice to see more and more people waking up the fact that Obama and McCain are the same, the "choices" allowed by the corpodemopublican party. Like Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, they will work assiduously toward the elites' goal of restoring the erstwhile days of nobles and serfs. While even Nader would be an improvement over McBama, why does nobody here think of Ron Paul? He's been warning about the current financial chaos for years. He would restore our civil liberties like no other candidate. If there's anything we need today is less government interference, not more.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
What you mean is "It's nice to see people who won't be voting for Obama."
However, most of them are just trolls agreeing with trolls.
But I'm guessing you already knew that.
ctrl-z September 22nd, 2008 11:07 pm
"However, most of them are just trolls agreeing with trolls."
The one I would most suspect most of being a troll is the one that is running around calling everyone a troll who disagrees with them.
Lobo Gris
Looks like you know how to identify trolls.
Lobo Gris sings: "The one I would most suspect most of being a troll is the one that is running around calling everyone a troll who disagrees with them."
I'm pretty sure that's the first line in the Troll National Anthem.
You are really delusional if you still think criticism of Obama is only coming from "trolls" or conservatives.
Go look up the difference between 'most' and 'only'.
Knowing it could help you avoid embarrassment.
You notice how no one ever expands on the predicted disaster if we don't go along. Our economy is dead. Is that disaster enough for you? That sickening feeling that maybe you should take your money out of the bank and bury it, is that a celebration of that death? What could be more disasterous than gutting the coffers of the US Treasury and handing it to bankers. Will we then share, as a nation, the profits these financial institutions generate after re-inflating over priced real estate and selling it back to us? Think not. Creating the brand new disaster of a vaporized dollar resulting from such lunacy is not a prefered conclusion. Let these institutions reorganize under bankruptcy proceeding and then rebuild anything left over that's good into our new economy. Our old one is dead.
Nobody in their right mind should want anything to do with the old economy.R.I.P.
Sioux Rose
CHRIS HORTON: Powerful, inspired post!
&YYY&
McCain and Obama definitely belong to the looters parties.
coyote sez: "Is there a broken record in here?"
The project of relieving simple-minded people of wealth for which they have no use is proceeding as planned. My conservative friend (I just have the one), for example, tells me that it is absurd to recognize Arab ownership of Middle East oil resources or to respect their national boundaries. They just need a place to park their camels, he says. The idea that the oil under their sand belongs to them and not to the industrial world is just silly.
Likewise the vast reserves of cash in the US Treasury. Americans know it isn't really theirs. That money is just sitting there when it could be buying winter homes for bankers in the Cayman Islands or fueling the lending scams that keep our fattest cats happy under those porky cheeks and jowls. You have to admire the staggering audacity of it. The former CEO of Goldman Sachs flips through the revolving door into Bush's cabinet and predictably dumps the contents of the national treasury into the maw of Wall Street.
Assuming, as one can not, that the Neocons simply seized the opportunity to take power for 8 years and make off, like the Beagle Boys, with huge gobs of the world's loot, then they will retire in luxurious disgrace come January, leaving us with sore bottoms and an armful of junk loans. But one can not be that optimistic. McCain's faith in the resiliency of the American worker is not misplaced. Soon there will be more wealth and more pirates to come for it at harvest time.
A vote for Nader is not about electing Nader. It is about personal self respect. In the world of pornography there is a word for people who lick the hands of those who abuse them. Remember that your bathroom mirror will still be there after January.
Voxclamantis
Intelligently and articulately well stated. The most progressive, non-corporate and anti-imperialistic candidate is without doubt Ralph Nader.
"Remember that your bathroom mirror will still be there after January."
Will you be looking in it and saying "What did I do, I could have voted against McCain and didn't"?
When McCain is packing the Supreme Court with right-wingers who never saw a company they didn't like or a civil right that they did, will you regret your 'vote'?
When McCain attacks Iran, will you be wishing you'd voted against him?
When we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange because of McCain's policies, will you wish you'd come to your senses?
I'm not going to have any trouble looking into my mirror. Will you?
I know this will irritate the heck out of you. You’ve heard me beat this drum too many times and you’re sick of it. I know. But like you I feel driven to share my position.
In January when you look in the mirror, the world will still have the same problems or war and economic crisis. Those problems will persist unless you vote for fundamental change outside the fascist, corporate, oligarchy that is driving America to ruins. To do that you must NOT vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. This article shows some of the competence and expertise that Nader displays, competence that every single, bought and paid for, lying excuse for a politician in both major parties completely lacks.
I predict that in January, when Obama wins, but when America’s problems continue to worsen you will look in the mirror and you’ll say, “I did the best I could”, or, “I voted for the lesser of two evils”, and “It’s not my fault” But you’ll be lying to yourself. For you see, to take the position of voting for the lesser of two evils when there are true solutions staring at you right in the face you have to lie. Otherwise your brain will implode from an extreme form of Contradictory Encephalitis.
In contrast, in January I will look in the mirror and I won’t have to lie to myself. I will say, “I voted for the best candidate. It’s not my fault that most people in America did not. I did the right thing and they did not” Of course I still have to live with their choice, but I will not be lying myself when I say, “It’s not my fault”
Remember, Johnson was a Democrat. He lied to Congress in order to invade Vietnam, just like Bush lied to invade Iraq. I lived then. I remember the lies. They were big lies. It was a big war. Lots of democrats voted for it. Nixon (a Republican) got elected on a platform that he would end the war, but of course that was a lie. He continued to expand it. It was a bad war. It was a useless war. Lies. Lies. Lies. And it all started when Democrats were in power. The future won’t change under either McCain or Obama. America will have more big wars to come. However, perhaps Obama will be better at lying about these wars and that will allow you to continue to lie to yourself about it. So you can look in the mirror and have a good feeling about it. After all, just wars are good wars, right?
By the way, I took your advice and posted my opinion at McCain’s website. I expected a backlash, but instead it simply went ignored.
Orez_Eno
"For you see, to take the position of voting for the lesser of two evils when there are true solutions staring at you right in the face you have to lie."
Voting for a candidate who will have no impact on the future doesn't seem like a solution to me.
You're on a chariot with two horses and two reins. If you pull one rein the chariot goes left, pull the other and it goes right.
You can complain that the horses are strapped together and are essentially the same, but you've got the reins. Pull left, go left. Pull right, go right.
Or you can jump off the chariot.
You're choosing to jump.
"The future won’t change under either McCain or Obama."
Really? So do you figure Gore would have attacked Iraq? That Kerry would have approved torturing prisoners? I don't.
To say the future will be the same under McCain or Obama is disingenuous. There's a big difference between "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran" and "So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war."
Pro-choice/Anti-Choice, a right-wing 'óriginalist' supreme court vs. a liberal one.
You know this. How can you say there is no difference?
"By the way, I took your advice and posted my opinion at McCain’s website. I expected a backlash, but instead it simply went ignored."
Try freerepublic.com. You'll get some responses there. :-)
ctrl-z
You sure are persistent, and also committed I might add.
Well, you’ll never convince an old buzzard like me. I’ve seen too much. But since this forum is partly for the benefit of others, let me respond.
You wrote:
Voting for a candidate who will have no impact on the future doesn't seem like a solution to me.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that throughout history has kept absolute monarchs in power, and that today keeps dictators and fascist governments in power. It is the kind of attitude that during the 1760s people in this country used for NOT supporting the revolution. They would say, “I will not support a revolution that has no chance of success against the King’s army, and hence can have no impact on the future. Have you seen the Contenental Army? They’re just a bunch of undisciplined thugs. I mean realistically, how can they defeat such a well disciplined army as the British? Besides, King George will one day die and we will eventually have a better monarch. It’s much better to support the system already in power because anything else has no chance of success.”
It is your kind of attitude that causes people to say to me (and many do), “Why do you want to waste your vote?” But voting outside the two party system DOES have an affect on the future. It is NOT a wasted vote.
I understand you are committed to your cause and you truly believe that Obama represents less war. But the sad truth is, you are being fooled. Just as America is fooled about who killed Kennedy. You know that museum in Dallas? Well, it’s a blatant lie. Oswald didn’t do it. He didn’t pull any trigger. He wasn’t even at the window. It is even likely that Oswald was on the payroll of the CIA. Yep, he was working for the government. But he wasn’t in on the operation. He wasn’t smart enough to take part in such a sophisticated operation. He also was not reliable enough security wise. But he was valuable as a patsy, and that is how he was used. I cannot visit Dallas because the presence of that museum gives me such a pain in my soul. That is how deep the pain that was inflicted on many of us that day.
But you say, “Enough of the past. What about the future?” But maybe you will never have a decent future until you clean up you country’s past.
You wrote:
You can complain that the horses are strapped together and are essentially the same, but you've got the reins. Pull left, go left. Pull right, go right.
I like your metaphors. They show you are very smart. But they can also be used to support my arguments. Yes, the horses are strapped together, but the reins in your hands are not connected. The horses are pulling the chariot full bore into the ditch, and you have no control. You pull left, and nothing happens. It’s the horses that control the chariot, not you. I suggest you jump off before you get hurt.
You wrote:
To say the future will be the same under McCain or Obama is disingenuous. There's a big difference between "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran" and "So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war."
Yes, McCain does represent “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”, and Obama represents “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” Do you see the difference. Obama has one less “bomb”. If you think that Obama will try to end the war I have a bridge in Alaska that I could sell you. The American military commitment in Iraq IS permanent. No president, Republican or Democrat will ever do anything to dismantle it. If he even tries he will go the way of Kennedy in a flash. The corporate fascist oligarchy that dictates the path that this country is following will not hear of it. The embassy in Baghdad will continue to be run by Americans with a strong military invasive force until it is eventually nuked out of existence. And the day that the corporate fascist oligarchy decides that it is time to invade Iran, Obama will do it, and the corporate fascist oligarchy that runs this country will continue to expand until eventually it is nuked out of existence by another power, perhaps even by the majority of the rest of the world acting collectively.
By voting or Obama you are voting for that eventual end.
Personally, I think Ahmadinejad would make a much better American President than McCain and Obama combined. Oh, sorry. I fogot. You still believe he has a nuclear weapons program, just like you believe Saddam Hussein did. Sorry. Despite my age I'm not very mature. I can never keep a secret. OK perhaps you don't believe that right now, but you will believe it when Obama tells you it's true, won't you?
You wrote:
You know this. How can you say there is no difference?
Perhaps that is the essence of our disagreement. I do see that there is no difference between the two major parties and my opinion is not based on a few words given in a speech by a bought-and-paid-for lying politician. In contrast, my opinion is based on a lifetime of seeing the evidence as it unfolded throughout my life. My opinion is based on how such events affected my own life. I only wish I could have seen the world as I see it now when I was young, when I still believed that the principles of this country as I was taught in school were true.
Thanks for your advice on where to post my opinions, but I’ll pass. It’s hard enough to convince people like yourself who are willing to listen and maturely discuss here on CommonDreams. People at those other sites are too far gone to even consider anything I have to say.
OREZ_ENO
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Always nice to lock horns with someone who actually addresses the issues.
You are very naive indeed if you think a Democrat like Gore wouldn't have attacked Iraq. Read some history. Democrats are just as militaristic as Republicans. Clinton paved the way for pre-emptive bombing. He did it in Iraq and when asked if it was legal he said, yeah, we think it's legal. His policies were responsible for a half million Iraqi deaths - mostly children.
And your candidate, Barack Obama, he voted for every single funding bill put before him. 1.3 million Iraqis dead, again, mostly children.
Dead chilren. A FISA bill that protects giant telecoms from illegal spying.
I never support people who choose to have other peoples' children killed for career advancement. Or cozy to telecoms that want to spy illegally on me. If you don't have a problem with it, that's your business.
We do have a collective voice if we choose to use it! Otherwise, we'll just tag along with the sold out corporate Democrats until there's nothing left to lose.
Nader 08!
"Would Al Gore have made a better president than George Bush? "Yes," says Mr. Nader, looking, for all the world, as if I'd asked him the silliest question. "Bush is the worst president we've ever had – in terms of damage to the nation, and incapacity.""
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121218925042534249.html?mod=todays_us_op...