Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Out-Hawks McCain
Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need "to end the mindset that took us into" that war. So it was troubling that tonight---in the first of the three presidential debates-- a man of such good judgment called for an end to the war in Iraq in order to escalate US military forces in Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for the two men on the Democratic ticket but for too many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like, that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in "the right war.")
A few weeks ago, a friend sent me an e-mail. "Here is a future dictionary entry for Afghanistan," he wrote.
"Afghanistan. The place where the dreams and hopes of the Obama Presidency are buried."
I flinched when I read the note. But it rang true. Obama risks creating a bipartisan consensus that will entrap the US in another costly occupation---draining resources needed to fulfill his (already limited) promises for economic growth, health care and social justice at home. Such escalation will also crowd out other international initiatives and alienate those allies we need to reengage the world on terms other than the so-called "war on terror."
At other times, though not tonight, Obama has spoken forcefully as the first 21st century candidate---addressing the limits of military force in a world whose central challenges are pandemics, nuclear proliferation, global inequality, and climate change. These are issues which McCain has no clue how to address. He is a man who craves the reassuring reflexes of the early Cold War era, when military power was the appropriate response to any provocation. Tonight, though, at too many key moments, Obama played on McCain's turf. Instead of playing to the future, forcefully, with toughness and passion, Obama was the young hawk trying to out-hawk the old uber-hawk. Obama can do better. We can do better. I know Obama wasn't courting me --but those elusive ---and infuriating --swing, undecided voters. (And the post-debate polls show Obama beating McCain among this group!)
Still, we confront grave, new security issues : a metastasizing financial crisis that threatens to evict millions from their homes, kill their kids' hopes for college and ravage their pensions . And in the long haul, we're going to face a ferocious fight to preserve the progressive agenda. Already tonight, debate moderator Jim Lehrer pushed the candidates to tell us what they would give up considering the bailout's costs. But as economist Jamie Galbraith argues, these are times not to balance budgets but to invest in the infrastructure which has made this country strong. Obama will need to speak more effectively, more boldly, more passionately about the new challenges ahead.
If elected, Senator Obama has the chance to be a transformational president. His election, if followed through with smart and just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and destructive ones of the extremist Bush Administration. But tonight he showed himself to be a raging minimalist.
292 Comments so far
Show AllSomebody get a doctor!
All the sock puppets that claim that the Democrats are corrupt for taking corporate money, what about the fact that Ralph Nader takes Republican money? Doesn't that make him a sellout, bought by the Republican party? He doesn't even try to deny any more that his role is to help Republicans by siphoning votes from Democrats. It's what they pay him to do.
Ralph Nader works for Republicans. He cashes their checks and accepts their organizational support. This is a matter pf public record and is absolute fact.
Those of you who support him are also doing Republican work. You're sleeping with the enemy. You are complicit in everything that happens and has happened under Republican rule.
If Nader was the perfect incorruptible progressive you claim he is, he'd tear up those Republican checks and send them back with a note saying "go to hell". But he accepts their money. You think they pay him for nothing? you think he isn't beholden to them? Keep dreaming.
Nader works for Republicans.
And if you support him, so do you.
kitty_tc; For some fun reading Google Nader Investments Fideltiy Magellan.
Then Google Fidelity Magellan Top 25 holdings.
Ralph is invested heavily in FM whose top 25 holdings include Wachovia, Goldman Sachs and Merril Lynch. Also Raytheon who makes cluster bombs.
But his heaviest investment is in Cisco who Naomi Klein says works "hand in glove' with the Chinese government spying on it's people.
For a bio of him that will make you cry, Google Ralph Nader Skeleton Closet. This details how he busted up his own worker's attempts to organize, how he hides his finances, how he and his avarice repell those that get close to him.
Cluster Bombs?
Ralph Nader is a Republican Tool. 100%.
Go kitty_tc.
If people had been voting Democrat and had rejected Reagan and Bush 1 & 2 in these last few decades, rather than Democrats moving to the right, Republicans would have become more centrist.
Ralph Nader well might have a cabinet position.
America would be an infinitely better country.
And the whole distribution of wealth would be more equal.
ie: If Democrats swept elections, rather than fighting Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove, moderate and progressive causes would be empowered and politicized positively in subsequent elections, thus moving the entire spectrum to the Left.
Obama. Not McCain.
Take it up with "Democrats for Nixon" and "Reagan Democrats." Remove the beam in thine own eye before complaining about the speck in lefties'.
'seriousfool'
I did not disparage lefties, or anyone. My post was intentionally kind. Unlike your ugly response.
I made a calm observation about how political truths on the ground could have been moved to the left over time.
I observed That Ralph Nader could now be empowered.
And you quote Jesus, tell me to remove the plank from my eye? Some professor-and don't I recall a post by you about respect in discourse? Hypocrite.
My post was intentionally respectfull, as I hoped to ameliorate some of the animus I'd seen on this thread, But no, you insult me, how tired.
So seriousloser, where do you "Teach?" Oh, Yeah Right, you are a Liar not a professor.
I think you gave 'professor' a lesson. :-)
Like taxes and death one can always count on the tag team of Dumb and Dumber. Is there an echo in here?
First we're the same person, now we're a tag team?
Make up your mind!
I realize that's an assumption on my part and, if you are in fact mindless, please accept my apology and sympathy for your condition.
Come to think of it, that would explain a lot.
Ric, true wisdom in your words. Just as an aside, I thought to post this parable about Jumping Mouse. I think a metaphor for the little mice scurrying around these pages.
Story of Jumping Mouse
The Story of Jumping Mouse
by Hyemeyohsts Storm
Native American Lore
Once there was a little mouse. He was a busy mouse, searching everywhere, touching his whiskers to the grass, and looking about. He was busy as all mice are, busy with mice things. But once in a while he would hear an odd sound. He would lift his head, squinting hard to see, his whiskers wiggling in the air, and he would wonder. One day he scurried up to a fellow mouse and asked him, "Do you hear a roaring in your ears, my brother?"
"No, no," answered the other mouse, not lifting his busy nose from the ground. "I hear nothing. I am busy now. Talk to me later."
He asked another mouse the same question and the mouse looked at him strangely. "Are you foolish in your head? What sound?" he asked and slipped into a hole in a fallen cottonwood tree.
The little mouse shrugged his whiskers and busied himself again, determined to forget the whole matter. But there was that roaring again. It was faint, very faint, but it was there! One day, he decided to investigate the sound just a little. Leaving the other busy mice, he scurried a little ways away and listened again. There it was! He was listening hard when suddenly, someone said Hello.
Hello little brother," the voice said, and Mouse almost jumped right out of his skin. He arched his back and tail and was about to run.
"Hello," again said the voice. "It is I, Brother Raccoon." And sure enough, it was! "What are you doing here all by yourself, little brother?" asked the raccoon. The mouse blushed, and put his nose almost to the ground. "I hear a roaring in my ears and I am investigating it," he answered timidly.
"A roaring in your ears?" replied the raccoon as he sat down with him. "what you hear, little brother , is the river."
"The river?" Mouse asked curiously. "What is a river?"
"Walk with me and I will show you the river," Raccoon said.
Little Mouse was terribly afraid, but he was determined to find out once and for all about the roaring. "I can return to my work," he thought, "after this thing is settled, and possibly this thing may help me in all my busy examining and collecting. And my brothers all said it was nothing. I will show them. I will ask Raccoon to return with me and I will have proof."
"All right Raccoon, my brother," said Mouse. "lead on to the river. I will walk with you."
Little Mouse walked with Raccoon. His little heart was pounding in his breast. The raccoon was taking him upon strange paths and little Mouse smelled the scent of many things that had gone by his way. Many times he became so frightened he almost turned back. Finally, they came to the river! It was huge and breathtaking, deep and clear in Places, and murky in others. Little Mouse was unable to see across it because it was so great. It roared, sang, cried, and thundered on its course. Little Mouse saw great and little pieces of the world carried along on its surface.
"It is powerful!" little Mouse said, fumbling for words.
It is a great thing," answered the Raccoon, "But here, let me introduce you to a friend."
In a smoother, shallower place was a lily pad, bright and green. Sitting upon it was a frog, almost as green as the pad it sat on. The frog's white belly stood out clearly.
"Hello, little brother," said the frog.
"Welcome to the river."
"I must leave you now," cut in Raccoon, "but do not fear, little brother, for frog will care for you now." And Raccoon left, looking along the river bank for food that he might wash and eat.
Little Mouse approached the water and looked into it. He saw a frightened mouse reflected there.
"Who are you?" the little mouse asked the reflection. "Are you not afraid of being that far out into the great river?"
"No, answered the frog, "I am not afraid. I have been given the gift from birth to live both above and within the river. When winter man comes and freezes this medicine, I cannot be seen. But all the while thunderbird flies, I am here. To visit me, one must come when the world is green. I, my brother, am the Keeper of the Water."
Amazing!" little Mouse said at last, again fumbling for words."
Would you like to have some Medicine Power?" Frog asked."
"Medicine Power? Me?" asked little Mouse. "Yes, yes! If it is possible."
"Then crouch as low as you can, and then jump as high as you are able! You will have your medicine!" Frog said.
Little Mouse did as he was instructed. He crouched as low as he could and jumped. And when he did, his eyes saw the Sacred Mountains.
Little Mouse could hardly believe his eyes. But there they were! But then he fell back to Earth, and he landed in the river!
Little Mouse became frightened and scrambled back to the bank. He was wet and frightened nearly to death.
"You have tricked me," little Mouse screamed at the Frog!"
"Wait," said the Frog. "You are not harmed. Do not let your fear and anger blind you. What did you see?"
"I," Mouse stammered, "I saw the Sacred Mountains!"
"And you have a new name!" Frog said. "It is Jumping Mouse."
My father (R.I.P.) once asked me: "Son what do you get when you put an intelligent person in a room with idiots?" I said, "I don't know." My dad answered, "A room full of idiots."
A word to the wise, don't argue with idiots unless you want to become one.
Nothing's really changed after two consecutive stolen elections, in either party. The Repugs are as devious, lying, scheming as ever; the Dems are persistently middle-of-the-roaders, from Carter straight thru to Obama, pseudo-progressives, milquetoast liberals, devoted followers of Wall St. wizards and big business tycoons, the same as the Repugs. And every 4 years we have the exact same non-choice thrust before us, the hapless voters who only turn upon one another as if it's all our fault. Obama supporters are exactly the same as Kerry supporters in '04, Gore supporters in 2000, Dukakis backers in '88, Mondale moonies in '84. Lesser evilism hasn't evolved. Those of us who see thru this horseshit, like RichM and Little Brother, Samson and many others here, are vilified as rightwing trolls or stupidly doing the far right's work by supporting Nader, McKinney or someone else. Exactly as it's been for 30 years. We'll probably get Obama and he'll prove to be another Clinton, who is actually supporting McCain, BTW, following the politics of resentment. The duopoly has created an insane asylum, and we're all the inmates. I voted twice for Nader but won't this time, or for anyone. Nader can only sow more division, rage, and futile expectations. He has less chance every time he runs of doing anything but drawing needless attention to himself. The Greens never get anywhere, no other third party gets anywhere, we're reduced to verbal brawling among ourselves while the duopoly rolls right along, doing what it's always done--delivering the same crap every four idiotic years. Obama will quagmire us in Afghanistan, withdraw funding from necessary social programs, piss off nearly everyone on either side of the meaningless aisle, and we'll get another cold war fascist in 2012. So long America! Our national suicide pact is nearly fulfilled.
"Those of us who see thru this horseshit, like RichM and Little Brother, Samson and many others here, are vilified as rightwing trolls or stupidly doing the far right's work by supporting Nader, McKinney or someone else."
Well Ephraim, you're here on a progressive site telling people not to vote. If they listen you're not taking any votes from McCain.
Sheer idiocy, ctrl-z, but it's a reflex for your type. If a confirmed leftist/progressive decides this whole charade isn't worth validating any further by voting for either Tweedle-dee or Dum, it doesn't logically follow that votes are thereby "taken away" from or given to either candidate of the Business Party. If I don't vote, it doesn't help McCain in any way, in exactly the same sense that it doesn't help, or hinder, Obama. Refusing to participate in this bullshit game is as much a political statement as any of you lesser evilist Obama backers when you do your solemn duty and vote, thereby giving your stamp of approval to a process that is bought and sold by both wings of the Business Party every four years. Go ahead and do that; I have also for the past, oh, 38 years. But I've found out a lot in all that time, the kind of history RichM tries to teach here to no avail, to all you Democratic apologists who will vote for that party's candidate from now to eternity because There Is No Alternative. Embrace your binary universe. Lord knows, you'll never see anything outside that box of paralysis, and those of us who do don't really expect you to.
You aren't trying to change the opinions of Republicans, you're trying to change the opinion of people here, people who, if they vote, will either vote 3rd party or Obama.
So if you change any opinions here so people don't vote, you're taking votes from Obama or 3rd parties.
Not McCain.
Pretending it isn't true doesn't change the facts.
It isn't remotely possible for a progressive to take votes away from McCain. Proselytizing Republicans to stop being the fascists they are is even more useless than telling Dem apologists that voting for Obama isn't remotely a progressive act. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to vote for Obama or Nader or anyone else. I'm merely saying that choosing NOT to vote for any of them is as informed a position as your for voting for Obama. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to understand what an absolute farce the Democratic Party has become, but that doesn't mean nobody else is entitled to understand it. In time, you may learn. Until then, cheer heartily for Obama, and by all means vote for him. It obviously means a lot to you.
"It obviously means a lot to you."
Yes, it does. I never thought I'd see a day when America was torturing prisoners and conducting illegal wars. I never thought I'd see 'Free Speech' cages and the government routinely listenening to phone calls, reading emails and checking library checkouts for its citizens. I don't know how far we can travel down this road before it isn't possible to get back. And it happened in the span of eight years. I can't imagine what four more years will do to us.
So I'm very concerned when I see progressives taking stances that benefit McCain.
I don't see Obama as a silver bullet, but he's a damn sight better than McCain.
Obama has voted for every last funding bill to continue the war on Iraq. The only time he stood against the war was when he served in the Illinois state senate, when he had no power at all to stop it from happening. Since being on Capitol Hill he has signed off on all legislation to continue this war crime. He's never said word One about the free speech cages at any political event. He voted yes on the FISA bill, allowing Bush all the eavesdropping surveillance he desired over US citizens. He's just fine with all that. He wants to send many more troops into Afghanistan, threaten Pakistan and Iran with shock and awe tactics if they don't do exactly as US corporations and Israel demand, beef up the military far beyond present levels, and will do nothing substantive about health care reform. He's as staunch a defender of Israel, no questions asked or permitted, as the loathsome Lieberman. And of course he's about to vote to fully fund the trillion dollar bailout for the Wall St. banksters and fraudsters, just as Bush is commanding all the Dems must do. If Harry Reid and Pelosi say Yes to Bush and the greed machine, so does Obama.
So with either Obama or McCain we'll get 4 or 8 more years of the same shit we're getting now. You see, I get real concerned when I see progressives supporting a continuation of the same policies we all deplore, pretending they'll end because someone more articulate comes along in Democratic costume. Same charade every 4 years, and at least half of American "progressives" refuse to see it.
Ephraim,
When you mix fact and fiction, it makes it difficult to believe you're doing anything more than putting out propaganda.
For example: "..threaten Pakistan and Iran with shock and awe tactics if they don't do exactly as US corporations and Israel demand, beef up the military far beyond present levels, and will do nothing substantive about health care reform. He's as staunch a defender of Israel, no questions asked or permitted, as the loathsome Lieberman." is 99% nonsense.
Intentional or not, your postings do nothing but help McCain.
"So with either Obama or McCain we'll get 4 or 8 more years of the same shit we're getting now."
Yeah, I'm sure you'll be singing that tune when abortions are outlawed, prayer comes back into the public schools and the Supreme Court is a rubber-stamp for corporations and evangelicals.
No, that's wrong. You'll be doing what you do now. You'll blame the Dems.
Ephraim
Intelligently and persuasively argued. Game, set, match.
Hello ctrl-z; Last night was getting hilarious.
Wow, soon, with the right wrong choices, made for the wrong right reasons, we could be saluting President Palin and what's his name.
Maybe not. Last night my daughter sent a chain email to all her friends in Facebook; 143,867 of them, and they've sworn allegience to Obama.
Signed: Soon knocking on doors in Nevada, bad-mouthing Sarah & John, Oh My!
Yeah, coyote is the gift that keeps on giving. :-)
Good luck with the campaigning.
What did you think? This is what happens with empire. The closer it gets to collapse, the more stupid for power its "leaders" get. All sanity gets thrown out the window. The monkey with its fist in the jar won't let go of the candy and thus can't pull its hand out.
What Katrina and the mindless will never get:
"The Trouble With Our State"
By Daniel Berrigan
The trouble with our state
was not civil disobedience
which in any case was hesitant and rare.
Civil disobedience was rare as kidney stone
No, rarer; it was disappearing like immigrant's disease.
You've heard of a war on cancer?
There is no war like the plague of media
There is no war like routine
There is no war like 3 square meals
There is no war like a prevailing wind.
It flows softly; whispers
don't rock the boat!
The sails obey, the ship of state rolls on.
The trouble with our state
--we learned only afterward
when the dead resembled the living who resembled the dead
and civil virtue shone like paint on tin
and tin citizens and tin soldiers marched to the common whip
--our trouble
the trouble with our state
with our state of soul
our state of siege--
was
Civil
Obedience.
shellbeach
Excellent comment on the first debate using: "The Trouble With Our State"
By Daniel Berrigan.
How about solving the aging problem so people have a chance to grow up and finding a space drive so the dissenters, such as _______________(fill in the blank) can have their own planet to pillage and destroy? Otherwise, everything else pretty much stays the same.
I recall hearing an interview by Ian Masters where the topic came up of why Obama is so interested in pursuing military operations in Afghanistan. I believe it was in the program of June 1, http://ianmasters.org/ian_masters_060108_24.mp3, but I am not entirely certain of that reference.
The notion was presented that Obama is concerned that Bin Laden is apt to acquire nuclear weapons in Pakistan and he wants to be able to keep him from doing so. Action in Afghanistan presumably would give him a foot in the door to do so.
My mother has been very instructive to me in this election cycle. She is voting for Obama despite being against war. She simply won't hear anything about his voting record. He has a "D" after his name. I asked her if she would vote for someone who would advocate killing, via the military, people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, perhaps Iran? No, she said. I listed all of Obama's actual positions. She said "NO" to all of them. But he has a "D" after his name! Insanity!
You shouldn't lie to your Mother about Obama's positions. Why don't you give her a transcript of the debate and let her see what was said? It might make up for your nonsense.
Hell, better give her some candy too.
Perhaps she is more concerned with keeping McCain/Palin out of office than she is about making some futile gesture against the system.
The only realistic way to keep this pair out of office is to elect Obama and the only action most people can take in this regard is to vote for Obama.
But perhaps you can suggest a more sane approach.
Suggest a more sane approach to someone who thinks Obama/Biden would be any different than McCain/Palin? It's useless to waste time with Lesser Evilists.
How can anyone be found who is not the lesser of two or more evils? I defy you to find anyone who is the perfect choice, whom no one can criticize.
Anyway, I had in mind a more sane approach of action, not simply to devote oneself to negativity.
I also recall that Obama referred to Venezuela as a "rogue nation".
That is LAUGHABLE. Chavez' electoral victories have been observed and certified by UN observers - who are NOT allowed in the US by the way to monitor elections.
Obama is advocating unilateral warfare. That was the crime of Nazi Germany.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Jackson, presiding over the war crimes tribunals at Nuremburg, said,
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."
By our own standards, Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan are all war criminals; by my standards, Obama is advocating Fascism.
Tanstaafl.
I agree that it's wrong to label Venezuela as a "Rogue Nation." The right-wing radio folks like to call it a dictatorship, another bit of BS.
But where do you get that "Obama is advocating unilateral warfare"?
Preznit bouche at 7:28 am
Very good quote from the former Supreme Court Justice and the valid reference to Obama, McCain, Bush, et al being war criminals. But I suspect that your were referring to Robert H. Jackson, who did indeed preside over the war crime tribunals at Nuremberg and not the actor Samuel L. Jackson.
My take on the debate - McCain and Obama are promising endless war, and possible expansion into Pakistan and other places.
After the recent American incursions into Pakistan, a Pashtun tribe numbering 500,000 stated that they would happily join forces with the Taliban to help defeat the foreign occupiers.
Obama, plain and simple, is advocating Fascism, unilateral warfare and a continuation of the failed Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Iraq war was wrong, doesn't it follow that the occupation is wrong also?
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush's policies. That is truly throwing your vote away.
Tanstaafl.
Coyote sez: "Is there a broken record in here?"
Monster/Suicide/America - Steppenwolf
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog
And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey
(Suicide)
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'
Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost ($700 billion?)
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching
(America)
America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster
ctrl-z; I think we better stop teasing coyote.
Coyote? Everything is okay. You are safe. And you are right. About anything you want! Anything.
It was just me all along posing as those other dissenters that need to be punished. By you? Does that sound like fun?
Can you dial 911? Tell them to send an ambulance. Because you are losing it.
I see, a new tactic not based on name calling eh? Must get a little cramped with all those competing voices lurking inside? I guess you don't like your own behavior reflected back?
For anyone else who is interested in wasting more of your valuable time, I invite you to check out Hartmann's thread (or this one) and ctrl aka trans who only can engage people with disrespect. The truth is in the smelly pudding my friends. The tactic goes like this: ctrl is the bad cop who is a master of obfuscation and name calling who promptly shows up following an attack by trans. Note the time difference between each, what you will discover is a few minutes before the other chimes in. Hilarious if it were not so pathetic. But I see even trans is engaged in name calling.
Damn it translucent, the jig's up.
We should never have let the little scamp rent 'Psycho'.
Gave 'im nightmares too.
Get this - he's complaining about people who "engage people with disrespect."
Talk about unintentional irony.
Still, "master of obfuscation" has a nice ring to it.
Remember to wait a bit before replying.
May as well let the little lad have some fun.
Very observant of you to suggest they are actually the same person. I have sparred with both of them and now consider it a waste of time. It's rare for me to respond to "Republican troll" attacks and such.
Anyone with half a brain stem could see my attacks as from the left, not the right. You'd have to be very clever to have a right-wing brain and be able think enough like a leftist to come up with credible arguments. I am sure it can be done but who would want to? How much would you have to pay a person to do that and what would it accomplish?
I would hope most bloggers are sincerely representing their true thoughts. Right wingers like Snow Wolf make right wing arguments and aren't really trolls. He is an honest Republican that enjoys blogging amongst progressives to rile them up. I ignore him too.
I myself have thought of blogging under several identities but decided to be honest. I used to blog under a tag name and eventually went with my real name. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. As far as I know we still have the 1st Amendment that and it's still legal.
Rather than some lone-nutjob doing freelance disinformation, I can easily imagine a paid position in the Rove campaign, where a person takes on a few different personas to spread dissent on the left. One poster for each site, and you have a powerful tool. That's their M.O. Divide and conquer.
Ric notes: "You'd have to be very clever to have a right-wing brain and be able think enough like a leftist to come up with credible arguments. I am sure it can be done but who would want to? How much would you have to pay a person to do that and what would it accomplish?"
Thanks Ric, that is really funny, but I am afraid will go right over the top of her/it/their head. The half a brain stem characterization surely fits though... I am giving you a knowing nod between my own laughter...
Your posts are always anti-Obama and anti-Dem, with the rare exception of posts like the one above. If you think that right-wingers don't come to progressive sites and pretend to be progressives you are naive. Spend a little time over at freerepublic.com You may learn something. They'll also appreciate your anti-Obama rants.
Respect, brother.
Someone would have to be a defender of the status-quo and the establishment to believe it would be impossible for a leftist progressive to not turn on Democrats. The frame is completely wrong because the Democrats have been in power since 2006 and we get the same right wing polices enacted.
The assumption is made that the political spectrum is so narrow (and it is) that only two positions are allowable. One being Republican and the other being Democratic.
The Dem/Pug combo has given endless war, curtailment of civil rights, gargantuan military budgets, off shore shore drilling etc.
Don't be offended, (this is not for madcow) but only a person of limited mental capacity could not understand how it would be possible to conclude that both parties are in collusion and that our only hope is to stop voting for them.
How many times do I need to say this. This argument appears to be beyond many Democrat's ability to comprehend. I know that. I on the other hand do understand lesser-evilism. I get it. I just don't agree with it. Why can't DPA see we are no longer good with Democrats. Why? Well because Democrats:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war after promising to do so
2) Refuse to impeach Bush/Cheny
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers on the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10)Allow Guantanamo to stay open so they can torture outside US jurisdiction.
11)Allow themselves to be pissed on by signing statements
12)Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________. (offshore drilling?)
Get it? That's what I thought.
"Don't be offended, (this is not for madcow) but only a person of limited mental capacity could not understand how it would be possible to conclude that both parties are in collusion and that our only hope is to stop voting for them."
Because that worked so well in 2000 and 2004, right?
I mean, look how much better things are today because people voted 3rd party or didn't vote.
Great plan.
I can understand lesser-evilism. And that is almost respectable. Some vote for Obama because he's better than McCain. I guess that's okay. It's their right.
My union endorsed Obama. I can't stand the guy but I'll pass out Obama buttons at the next meeting because I am the local Chapter Chair of the union at my work place and I feel I need to represent the wishes of my union leadership in my capacity as the local Chair.
It is one thing to hold your nose and do your job and another to actively go to bat for a sell out when you don't need to. That isn't respectable. That's what the DPAs on CD do. I have no respect for that.
And I guess if I had more scruples I would refuse to do even that. I just figure Obama probably has California in the bag and most of my chapter supports Obama anyway. They will probably like the buttons. I admit they look cool and I got them for free. So what the hell?
Listen, you don't need to hand out Obama buttons. If you union requires you to do that it is just as bad as republicans (or any other totalitarian entity).
Yes, this is real life and it sucks, but if we go along with injustice and we know what the end looks like on the path we are on, we can't complain when we get there. This is when it is necessary to object, or at least not go along without a struggle.
And to differ on voting for Nader in safe states, if you want to vote for Nader, vote for Nader no matter what state you're in, whether or not Obama will win or not. We sometimes have to make short term sacrifices to get long term gains.
Nader Interview in AVC (found on the web)
AVC: By your own admission, the Bush administration is one of the worst in recent memory. Going by what you've said in the past about how the lesser of two evils is still evil, do you see McCain and Obama as indistinguishable? If you agree that McCain would be an extension of Bush's policy, wouldn't Obama be at least a smidgen less evil? And isn't that reason enough to vote for him?
Ralph Nader: Let's accept your premise. Here's my response. The lesser of two evils, or the least of the worst, is not good enough for the American people anymore. They've both gone down below the flunk bar. When you consider Democrats today compared to Democrats in the '60s—ha! Democrats today are overwhelmed with what might be called, indelicately, anal flutter.
AVC: Anal flutter? That's a new one.
Ralph Nader: In other words, they have no political fortitude. They're always trying to engage in protective imitation of the Republicans—"More soldiers in Iraq" or "I'm John Kerry and I'm ready for duty." [Adopts tough-guy voice.] "We wouldn't have pulled out of Fallujah!" he says to Bush in the first debate. So, after the election, Bush blew Fallujah apart. Obama swings back and forth—hope, change, hope, change—like a metronome, inducing hypnosis. And McCain is the candidate of perpetual war and omnipresent military bases.
[for rest of article, go to http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/ralph_nader/1]
www.NotOneMore.US
Very well said. Your link should be a requirement for all peace loving Americans, liberal or otherwise.
The temptation is to think that Obama and the Dims are idiots. Right? Wrong. They are no fools and they are not spineless cowards. They do these things precisely because that is what the powers that be want. Both Dims and Pugs are just errand boys doing the bidding of the powerful elites. To deny this displays either willful self-delusion of good old fashioned stupidity. Which is it? The temptation is to think that Obama and the Dims are idiots. Right? Wrong.
They are no fools and they are not spineless cowards. They do these things precisely because that is what the powers that be want. Both Dims and Pugs are just errand boys doing the bidding of the powerful elites. To deny this displays either willful self-delusion, backwardness, or good old-fashioned stupidity. Which is it Dim?
Ric Abreu,
I think you're right. Noam Chomsky said once of the Democratics puzzing actions in rubber stamping Bush appointees - like MuCasey. You had to say, why in the hell are they approving a guy who won't say Bush is subject to the rule of law? (Thanks to Diane Feinstein he passed).
When seemingly intelligent people keep making seemingly irrational decisions in this manner, they have an ulterior motive.
Why didn't Kerry contest the 2004 election as he promised? The Democratic party did not even pay for the recount in Ohio, the Green party had to pay for it!
Anyone thinking we have two parties is dreaming. Look at the facts people, after a Democratic "victory" we have an even greater military mess, a larger military budget, and an ever-expanding war, telecom immunity, ehanced surveillance, and we are still Israel's biyotch.
Vote Green, Socialist, or vote with your feet and hit the streets for some civil disobedience, or a general strike.
We desparately need a general strike in this country, let's talk it up.
Tanstaafl.
"We desparately need a general strike in this country, let's talk it up."
Word.
--
Eric Patton
http://www.myspace.com/412205319
And we try not to repeat ourselves (not always successfully).
Do I hear an amen from trans the other alter ego? Oops toggling back and forth does pose an energy drain, does it not?
Just as cute as a fluffy bunny!
Take your pick, all fit the Obamites.
coyote -
I think you might want to read it again. S-l-o-w-l-y this time.
The schizophrenics are out in force tonight. Read the last few sentences. S-L-O-W-e-r....
Try again. You know you don't always get things the first time around. If there's an adult nearby you might want to ask for help.
Cutie.
Have you ever heard of being ironical? If the concept is foreign to you as I suspect it is, you might want to check with mommy assuming she is not another one of your personality traits in which case you can forget the whole matter?
Do you know who I am speaking to right now? Is it trans, or cntrl, or dog breath? You might want to measure your own infantile practices assuming you are finished wiping shite off your hands. It must take a lot of energy keeping up with your defense of Obama whle chasing me and Hank, and the guy with a long name, along with raptor and a few others. But keep them diapers filled my young friend.
Did we hurt the poor baby's feelings? There, there now. It's just words.
Say it with me: Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I think you're just a little cranky cause you missed your nap.
ctrl-z; Are you me?
If so, how come you're funnier?
Why do you get all the good lines?
Our little friends sure are frisky, frenzied and frothing at the mouth-sorry coyote-about Obama.
Me thinketh they doth protest too much.
That only took 13 minutes. Almost a record. I wonder if they remember what triggers the personality distortion? Any experts out there?
Yes, coyote, there's just one person in the whole wide world who disagrees with you, you cute little pup.
"ctrl-z; Are you me?"
I wish. You're the more thoughtful one. :-)
I think it's so cute that coyote would like to pretend that only one person disagrees with him though.
It makes him seem a little more human.
...we all hold our breath waiting for the next personality to kick in...
Just as cute as a button.
Re. RichM's post:
It's not a long post, but certainly strikes me as words to pay careful attention to. DO NOT neglect what he says in that post, and I've read not many but some prior posts by him, and they all seem to be very consistent from what I've seen. Pay attention to the [fore]-warnings, for RichM is providing, and also have been other people; I guess some at CD, but also at other websites.
I agree that it is not appropriate to claim with certainty what Obama will do, in terms of doing good, that is; but in terms of doing bad, we can consider that he [does] speak out of both sides of his mouth, and then all of his criminal votes as a U.S. senator. Sure, he's not the sole senate (and Congress) level member to have voted in consistently criminal ways, but that does not make the situation any better, it does not improve his [real] standing. And he is the DP candidate running for president!
It's not appropriate to make very unfounded claims about Obama "will do this, that, and the other things" of good once elected to the presidency, for there definitely isn't sufficient grounds for making such claims. Doing so is more nonsensical (if not worse) disneyland crap. So it's very inappropriate to say he'll do good things.
Remember all of the good things the Bush-Cheney cabal promised that their war on Iraq was about; bringing democracy, peace, justice, etcetera, to Iraq and for Iraqis? It was immediately obvious, the second those words were stated publicly, that they were hellish LIES, and many U.S. citizens still believed this obvious series of lies; totally numb, instead of thinking critically. People are again doing this with Obama!
Bush and Cheney are far from alone in being guilty of such lying and criminally warring on innocent others; it's very customary of the U.S. govt and its diverse ... et alia league.
Be suckers, if you wish, but do it ALONE; [instead] of causing unjustified suffering for others, too! Suffer the consequences of thine own stupidity, or worse, and do it ALONE! Sounds good to me!
There are enough prophetic voices of the social order kind speaking or warning today, and the words should be carefully heeded. So, [wake up]!
RichM's post is short, but is all substance.
Beware of Obama, and no, he's not intelligent as Gleen Greenwald wrote in his recent piece posted at CD and on Biden's 35 years as a U.S. senator. If Obama was truly intelligent, then he'd know very well that the Taliban never had anything to do with attacks that occurred in the U.S. on Sep. 11, 2001, leaving that war against them was as stated in my prior post, below.
KVH opens with:
"Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need "to end the mindset that took us into" that war. So it was troubling that tonight---in the first of the three presidential debates-- a man of such good judgment called for an end to the war in Iraq in order to escalate US military forces in Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for the two men on the Democratic ticket but for too many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like, that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in "the right war.")"
SHE MUST'VE been sleeping for the past several or more months, for Obama's been promising to escalate in Afghanistan for many months.
He and the DP (Dem. Party) evidently prefer to disregard the fact that Bush said that the Taliban had had absolutely nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., having clearly stated this in a televised speech prior to the launching of the criminal war of aggression against them and on the basis that it was supposedly legitimate to do this because they had some association with Usama Bin Ladin, who's certainly no more criminal than the ... too many international terrorists that the U.S. harbours and has been long, enough, harbouring, protecting them from extradition so that they can be justly tried, as they most definitely need to be. The U.S. would declare an attack against itself totally criminal if the same approach was taken in order to punish the U.S. for harbouring its many enough proven terrorists.
It's all U.S. and NATO, so European and Canadian, too, HEGEMONY, HYPOCRISY, ..., which can NEVER be justified!
But there's little difference to really speak of between the DP and its counterpart fiends known as the RP, which is certainly and clearly not [republican] to any noteworthy degree; being mostly criminal, hegemonic, hypocritical, ..., heh, like its counterpart fiends, the DP.
"BellingtonTheCat September 27th, 2008 11:51 pm
McCain hates war so much, he only wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years.
And, don't forget, he did say "...there will be more wars.""
NO, he corrected the 'hundred years' reference, replacing it with (I believe) indefinitely or else for some presently unknown or undecided period of time. Of course that's not much better, given that it means that the duration could end up meaning longer than 100 years, instead of less. And this is besides the point I had in mind of making.
Obama doesn't really promise an end to the war on Iraq, not afaik (as far as I know) anyway; for he's said that he'll maintain the criminally established U.S. embassy and military bases in Iraq, which'll require ... what? Basically an army sort of force; regardless if its manned by U.S. military army, or the contracted private company mercenaries, who've only been WORSE.
And Obama has been threatening Iran, saying that it will absolutely not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran actually has the legal right to do, and which NO govt of the West can legitimately criticize, given they're criminally supporting nuclear NTP non-respecting Israeli govt, which is very enough nuclear-armed and refuses to allow IAEA inspections. And the same has applied with Pakistan, while much enough of the same also applies with India. Also, and afaik, the U.S. doesn't allow IAEA inspections of U.S. nuclear armaments, or any other international inspections of U.S. military (and other, like academic) labs where bio. and chemical weapons are developed, besides other insane types of weapons, the "softer" kind, are also developed, or at least under research.
Environmentalists who are honest can ask Iran to not develop nuclear weapons, but this is not necessarily good, for Iran would only use these for deterrance and it has much to be deterred that is difficult to deter without being nuclear-armed. In that respect, such environmentalists are utopic and dangerous, if listened to, for if Iran has been developing nukes for purposes of deterrance, then it has the legal and ethical right to do so, and has a population of around 60mn to PROTECT. Utopic minds don't provide practical and just solutions! Instead, they can endanger vast populations! They should stay out of this debate!
El Bareidi should keep his damn mouth shut if Iran's developing nukes, for they'd only be for deterrance; given Iran's leadership is NOT insane enough to start any nuclear wars and has real cause to seek means of deterring extremely criminal and catastrophic aggression!
And Obama has been threatening to escalate in Pakistan, as well as having said absolutely nothing about the criminal act-of-war aggression against Haiti, and the extreme crimes of the U.S. and NATO in African countries; in addition to not really being intelligent, for if he was, then he'd also be siding with the need to re-open the investigations into the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks, which need re-investigation and with thorough honesty, etcetera.
So two evils should NOT be supported on Nov. 4th; the Obama and McCain campaigns!
Just throw the whole U.S. system into the Gehanna where it belongs; the dump Jews of ancient times used to burn their garbage.
The greatest obstacle to a progressive movement in our country are commentators such as Katrina Vanden Heuvel. No outrage about Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader being banned from the presidential debates that are controlled by the 2 major parties. This apparently is not a concern. God help us all.
"The greatest obstacle to a progressive movement in our country are commentators such as Katrina Vanden Heuvel."
Word.
--
Eric Patton
http://www.myspace.com/412205319
little z
Rapt-or-unwrapped
Hank Fur
lil brother
Since you're all lining up like ducks in a row against Obama's comments about Pakistan, I'd like to know:
IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW AL QAEDA BASES IN PAKISTAN?
Now Al Mussawwir said (in a round-about way) "Yes, the U.S. has no right to attack Pakistan, even if there are Al Qaeda bases there."
What do you say?
A simple 'Yes' or 'No', or something that can be read as that, will suffice.
Hard cases make bad law.
Sometimes there are no right answers, only answers that are less wrong.
The only one lining up in a row are your numerous schizophrenic roles. Run out of prozac?
Oh, come on coyote. I just forgot to include you in the question. Don't get all huffy. If no one responded I'll do an edit and add your name.
Oh, sorry. You replied already.
Still, feel free to answer the question.
Al Quaeda has no military "bases" anywhere. Terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan are Pakistan's and Afghanistan's problem. Unless there is a genuine popular clamor for US military assistance, the US should get out and stay out - US intervention only increases the resentment and violence. The US is under no threat of an "attack" from the "terrorists" (most of which are actually sectarian guerrilla fighters) - how would they attack us?
The incidents on Sept 11 were not an "attack" - they were a ridiculously simple suicide hijacking of airliners by 19 criminals who took advantage of horribly lax airport and airliner security.
USAn
Extremely pertinent observation. What also should not be forgotten is when the United States continued to insist that 35 of the 90 Afghan civilians that were slaughtered by 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs last August were militants, that they were finally forced to back down when Afghans took pictures of the carnage and revealed that 60 of those who were killed were children, ages ranging from 6 months to 16 years. It also should be pointed out that Obama wishes to increase the number of troops to Afghanistan which will simply add more misery and suffering to the Afghan people. Also, what ctrl-z does not mention regarding Obama's speech vis a vis Pakistan is that Obama stated that he would order American forces into Pakistan [a sovereign country] if he were provided with "actionable intelligence." Undoubtedly, this would be the same type of "actionable intelligence" that contributed to the massacre of those 90 Afghan civilians last month. Simply more militant rhetoric emanating from the mouth of the [alleged] antiwar candidate.
USAn; If we have crystal clear real-time pic's of Osama (That is NOT Obama, don't get stuck there,) bin-Laden having tea with al-Zawahiri, and we ask for written permission saying it's Okay but don't get it, while the ISI tips off Osama and effs the op up,
Do you think we should
A. Say we are sorry we asked and Increase Aid to Pakistan?
B. Send Osama his picture and try to sell it to him?
Or Vaporize Osama and al-Zawahiri?
Don't forget. Killing is a sin.
Hey trans just wondering if your finger tips are getting stressed switching back and forth between your alter egos?
I don't even know how to. When CD changed up and I had to re-register it was a hassle. Can you post with different names from the same line?
Having said that 'coyote,' I don't want or need to post with aliases. Why the heck would I? I mean every word I say, Aliases Are For Cowards, I stand by my thoughts, I don't seek to obscure them except for refraining from insulting people like you. It is tempting. But I do not want to be like that.
But I'll bite coyote, please don't bite my ankles, who else am I? Make me someone cool.
Are my fingers stressed you ask? Unlike you I'd wager, I play the piano and guitar and my fingers are strong and agile.
Back to your x-box little coyote.
Guess I hit a nerve a trans? Your futile attempts at feigning ignorance only proves my point. Thanks. But be sure to get some rest between those role shifts, I would not want to see the waves crashing over your little boat causing a more dysfunctional disturbance than the one you currently have.
You are wasting your time my friend. She is nothing more than a paid Obama operative wearing numerous disguises under different sign on names to make it look like she has supporters when in fact, it is one person with a lot of hot air. Just ignore her and she will disappear with time. Would not surprise me if it were Katrina, though!
Vanden Heuvel does what The Nation always does. That is: she hopes that the Democratic nominee will be progressive despite all evidence to the contrary, and then offers unconditional support.
A quick look reveals the lunacy of such a tactic for at least the last generation.
one more time: Voting for a candidate whose positions are opposed to yours makes a farce out of the right to the democratic franchise.
KVH is nothing more than a corporate stooge representing the worlds oldest profession. She will spread her legs wide for any donations by anyone connected to the power elite. Ralph accomplished more in one year of his long life of activism than Katrina has in her entire life of servitude to the power elite she speaks on behalf of.
Coyote, I agree with the general sentiment. What I can't agree with, though, is the tactic of sexualizing Vanden Heuvel's weak argument. Think about that.
Well put.
Thank you, but I'll pass on approval from bad-faith discussants.