Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Country in Shambles, Under GOP Rule
There are few things that make political coverage more unbearable -- and more distorting -- than The David Brooks Syndrome: the extremely patronizing and ill-informed pretense, shared by media and right-wing elites alike, that they can study the Little Common Person like a zoo animal, and then translate and give voice to their simple-minded, good-hearted, salt-of-the-earth perspectives. Rarely has this mentality been so transparent as in the wake of the Biden-Palin debate, as pundits and right-wing polemicists like Brooks, Peggy Noonan and Rich "Starbursts" Lowry rushed forward to proclaim giddily that Regular Americans would love Sarah Palin and this love could even help McCain win, despite -- or, really, because of -- her vapid, content-free telegenic presence.
Actual empirical evidence -- called "polling data" -- has almost uniformly demonstrated how false these condescending pats on the head are, as every single poll conducted thus far (at least that I'm aware of) found that Americans believed that Biden won and is the far more serious candidate for office, and huge numbers continue to have profound doubts about Palin's fitness for office. And the first tracking poll to report a full post-debate day of polling -- the Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos -- finds Obama with a 13-point lead, his largest ever. This joint right-wing/pundit claim that Americans would swoon in the face of Palin's empty chatter, self-conscious folksiness and chronic, seizure-like winking says much more about those making the claim than it does about their Regular People subjects.
As polling data conclusively demonstrates, the mindset of the voting public is infinitely more rational and substance-based than the pundits and the Right fantasize when they lyrically praise the Regular American -- at least it is in this time of perceived (and actual crisis). What's happening in this country, and in this election, is rather simple and easy to see: (1) the country is in total shambles -- possibly far worse than what people even realize; (2) we have lived for the last eight years under virtually absolute GOP rule; (3) the public knows this; (4) the Republican President and his party are therefore intensely -- historically -- unpopular; and (5) the voting public doesn't want to continue living under the rule of the same faction and same political party that has driven the country into the ground. Having Sarah Palin drop her gerund endings and desperately trotting out the standard, tired GOP attack ads to depict Obama as a radical, fist-pumping, America-hating, unhinged socialist -- when everyone can see with their own eyes that he isn't -- won't change any of that.
That the Right believes in the fundamental stupidity of the American voter while simultaneously pretending to revere and speak for them them is reflected in their belief that they can successfully blame the financial crisis and the country's woes generally on Democrats, who -- while hardly covering themselves with glory -- haven't had any meaningful power in this country for as long as one can remember. Ponder how stupid you must think Americans are to believe that you can blame the financial crisis on the 2004 statements of House Democrats about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when that was a time when the GOP controlled all branches of the Government and nothing could have been more inconsequential than what Barney Frank or Maxine Waters, languishing in the minority in Tom DeLay's tyrannical House, said or did about anything.
In sum, Americans hate the way the country has been ruled,
the economic crisis is making them hate that more by the minute, and
the country has been dominated by Republican rule for the last eight
years -- at least. It's just this simple:
And
the reality is even more imbalanced than that graph illustrates:
between (1) the tiny margins the Democrats have had when controlling
the Senate, (2) the true functional majority of "GOP + Blue Dogs" in
the House, and (3) Democratic complicity and fear, it is GOP policy which ends up prevailing in virtually every instance of alleged "bipartisanship" even during those tiny slivers of ostensible Democratic control.
The overarching reality of the country is that we've lived under unchallenged Republican rule and the country has virtually collapsed on every level. No matter how dumb Rich Lowry and David Brooks fantasize The Regular People to be, those facts are far too glaring to suppress.
242 Comments so far
Show AllHighKarate,
I know this is a frustrating time, but please don’t yell. We already know you’re serious about your opinions.
Here’s a math word problem for you: If Train R is going west toward the Grand Canyon (1 mile away) at 90 miles an hour and the engineer has disabled the brakes, and Train D is on the same track going the same direction (1.1 mile away) at 70 miles an hour, and the engineer has disabled the brakes, how long before either train gets us to Washington DC?
Since none of us blowhards can say why to vote for someone other than a Democrat (to your satisfaction, though I think several have to my satisfaction), thank you for doing it for us:
Conscience is a perfect reason, thank you. If you know a vote for Nader or the Greens would make your conscience rest easier, why do we need to even continue the discussion? Maybe to find out what 100 other reasons you’re talking about? I think there are at least that many, and apparently so do you, so why are we arguing? If the Republicans are against us, and the Democrats are with the Republicans, (as demonstrated by vote after vote after vote after vote after vote…Ric Abreu’s 14 are only a small start) who is for us? I will happily vote for someone powerful who believes what I believe, wants what I want, and acts as I act. If there is no one powerful like that I will vote for someone who is with me and for me, and thus make them powerful. Yes, it may take some time. But it would happen faster if everybody in the country would vote both their conscience and their desires, and if we all worked for what we really want it could happen amazingly quickly.
What does it say about someone who refuses to ask for what they want? What does it say about someone who refuses to work for what they want? What does it say about someone who instead works for a group who has said they will work against what that person wants?
(And yes, you got it right. To reach DC one of the trains would have to turn around. And quickly, cause we’re comin up to that cliff fast. )
How original. DPA argument #1 "THE REPUBLICAN TROLL"
highkarate displays the basic right wing tendency that is the hallmark of a Democrat. Democrats cannot fathom the existance of anyone being to their left or someone being opposed to Democrats on principle. In their minds anyone not supporting a Dim must be a Pug or shouldn't exist. Only Dims and Pugs should exist.
They think Democrats deserve votes and anyone that thinks otherwise is secretly trolling or isn't entitled to have a point of view. They think only people who support the sellout Dims should be allowed to post. They aren't far from becoming anti-free speech fascists.
The "Republican Troll" argument is really no argument at all. Basically its a clever attempt to change the subject and put Democratic dissenters on the defensive. It's a red herring, it's weak and decrepit and it lacks any rationale. It's what you say when you have nothing good to say about Dims except they aren't Pugs. Wow, like that really says a lot. Nice try.
Ric Abreu: Troll, Troll wannabe, McCain progressive or a disillusioned, naive progressive who doesn't care who is President?
Who cares? They all sound the same.
K-Delphi, Ric Abrieu, Errol, -
NOT ONE OF YOU BLOWHARDS CAN SAY WHY HOW WHERE WHEN IN THE HELL VOTING FOR NADER IS BETTER THAN VOTING FOR OBAMA.
YES VOTING FOR YOUR CONSCIOUS IS GREAT, IF YOU ARE LIVING IN YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT, OR ARE NOT RAISING KIDS, OR FOR A HUNDRED OTHER ISSUES.
TELL ME WHY VOTING FOR NADER NOW....NOWWWWWWWWWWW, AND GIVING MCAIN/PALIN A GLIMPSE AT THE WHITE HOUSE IS A GOOD IDEA?
NOT ONE OF YOU PEOPLE CAN TELL ME WHY THIS IS A GOOD IDEA!
YOU ARE ALL DISHONEST AND A BUNCH OF CIRCLE JERKS. Y'ALL GO ROUND AND ROUND AND SAY THAT ALL OR EVEN MOST OF US ARE DEMOCRATS OR ARDENT OBAMA SUPPORTERS WHEN WE SAY TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT WE WOULD RATHER HAVE SOMEONE LIKE NADER IN OFFICE, BUT THAT RIGHT NOW THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE CHOICE IS TO MAKE SURE THE MP'S OF THIS WORLD DON'T GET ANOTHER TERM IN OFFICE.
COME ON! YOU GUYS ARE EITHER REPUBLICAN TROLLS OR THIRD PARTY POSEURS WHO DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT ANYBODY OR ANYTHING. NOT ONE OF YOU HAS BEEN ABLE TO TELL ME HOW YOU ARE WORKING WITH A THIRD PARTY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ANYWAY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING.
IF YOU THINK THIS A PLACE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS WITHOUT OFFERING ANY SOLUTIONS OR IDEAS YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THAT.
SO WHY DON'T YOU TELL US WHY YOU ARE HERE? WHY YOU THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSTANTLY BASH OBAMA AND OFFER NO OTHER SOLUTIONS.
I HOPE OBAMA WINS SO WE CAN ALL RELAX A LITTLE AND FIGURE HOW WE ARE GOING TO HELP THIRD PARTIES WHILE HOLDING THE ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.
AND OF COURSE IF MP WINS THEN YOU CAN ALL HAVE A FIELD DAY AND DISCUSS THE END OF THE WORLD OR PARTY WITH THE TROLLS IN YOUR UNDERGROUND BUNKERS. WHICH IS PROBABLY WHERE YOU MOST FEEL AT HOME.
Within the framework of the American two-party system, mass hostility to the incumbent Republican administration has no outlet except the election of the Democrats, even though the Democratic Party has fully supported Bush’s policies, both before and after the nominal opposition party won control of Congress in the 2006 elections.
On Wednesday, both the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, and his Republican opponent, John McCain, cast their votes in the US Senate for the Wall Street bailout, giving Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson nearly unlimited authority to supply at least $700 billion in federal funds to banks and other financial institutions by buying their worthless mortgage-backed securities. The bill which Obama and McCain supported also includes an additional $150 billion in tax cuts, mainly to business and the wealthy.
The bill was passed in the face of massive popular opposition, which Obama and the Democratic leadership of Congress, in particular, treated with open indifference in their rush to bail out their allies on Wall Street.
read more:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/usel-o06.shtml
wow, ric abreu, the "dims" did all of that by themselves??? they are fucking amazing. and so are you. why not provide all of us with a list of what the repulsicans have done for us over the last eight years? go ahead, include any international events, through today, that you feel might be relevant.
hang in there, ctrl-z. it is indeed difficult when dealing with blocks of stone.
Thanks. Give 'em hell.
Herbalist-
I don't see how an article who's only point is that Nader has maybe helped the Democrats take progressives more seriously is an important point right now. As with most of the other posts by so called progressives who are voting for Nader as a protest vote, it seems to be a vote for their own benefit. As you point out, it gives you another choice, or as others point out, they can't live with the fact that Obama will continue for the most part war and atrocities not unlike what is happening now. While this is true, it is false logic.
HOW IS A MCCAIN/PALIN PRESIDENCY GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE ALL YOU NADER SUPPORTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT? IT SEEMS THAT A VOTE FOR NADER RIGHT NOW IS JUST A SELFISH WAY TO WASH YOUR HANDS OF ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR GOVERNMENT AND IT'S POLICIES, AS IN...HEY, DON'T BLAME ME, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT GUY.
Errol, Ric Abreu et al-
STOP SPENDING ALL YOUR TIME ON COMMON DREAMS YELLING ABOUT OBAMA AND GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING FOR THE THIRD PARTIES. THEY NEED YOUR HELP ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. THE ONLY PEOPLE YOU ARE DOING A FAVOR FOR HERE RIGHT NOW IS THE REPUBLICANS. GO BUILD YOUR BUNKERS AND STOCKPILES AND SIT AROUND PLAYING CARDS TALKING ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD AND HOW YOU IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. GO TO SOME LIBERTARIAN SITE, YOU WILL FIND FRIENDS THERE.
I apologize for the yelling but none of you NADIRS debate any of the issues, it seems you are just here to unload your personal anger and angst on the good people of CD. While this is fine, none of you have been able to offer up any good suggestions as to why voting for NADIR in this presidential election is a positive thing for the progressive movement.
I would love to have a guy like Nader, or McKinney, who I know is not a guy, or a Kucinich, but you people need to save your energy and do something in between elections and especially at the local level.
COME ON NOW, WHAT IS YOUR DEAL? ARE YOU PEOPLE JUST TROLLS? PROGRESSIVES NEED TO STICK TOGETHER, WHAT IS WITH ALL OF THE NONSENSE?
WHERE IS YOUR HEART, WHERE IS YOUR SENSE?
I am not fully supporting Nader, but, where do you get off? Do you want a list of the things that I cannot support , that Obama supports? You must have not been here very long, if you haven t seen any debates or arguments. I think that, about all that can be said , has been said. Most people know what the candidates stand for.
Make your own choice.
Progressives need to support a progressive candidate. If they all did--would we end up with Obama?
Progressives need to organize until they can field a winning candidate. In the mean time they should vote for the viable candidate closest to their values.
DPAs. Flat Earthers. Some are leaders of thought, and others are laggards. Eventually the truth will come out and become conventional wisdom. People will eventually look back and affirm that this was a time when the oligarchy was cemented under the two-party rule and we became a fascist state.
That is when the reboots and madly diseased of the world will finally catch up; when what we say becomes conventional wisdom. It's already is common knowledge among the more enlightened. Some folks can't see the light until it hits them in the face. Don't waste your time with these fools. By the time they catch up things will have already evolved.
The reason "third parties" they aren't viable is tht they are excluded form the debate - to the point of being arrested if the third party candidate even shows up on the campus where the debate is to be held. This is what happened to Nader in 2000.
Meanwhile, in Canada, they had a debate recently - the debate included five candidates - Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Green and Bloc Quebecois - all sitting around a table. The Bloc Quebecois is a tiny minority party - getting 1% of the total Canadian vote - but nevertheless they do hold a few parliament seats. Like all real democracies, Canadians can't even imagine excluding the leader of a party from a mational debate just because the party is small. Only is phoney, sham democracies - dictatorships in disguise - like the Unites States do they do this.
All those who ridicule "third" parties are basically supporting the current, profoundly undemocratic status quo.
Yes Ric, you're enlightened. You see things people who aren't enlightened can't see. Someday you'll be recognized for your genius.
Just wait a bit.
The reason 3rd party candidates like Green Party Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader aren't viable is because the overwhelming majority of Democrats who are lead by the likes of Nancy Pelosi continue to vote for them no matter who badly they sell us out. You need to look in the mirror, those of you voting for Dims, if you want to see a good reason why things are the way they are. Wake up.
This is good. A graph showing the Dems have had very limited power since 2000 inspires Ric Haveabrew to blame the Dems for "why things are the way they are."
Almost anything can inspire Ric Haveabrew to attack the Dems.
According to him, the Dems are responsible for the failure of 3rd parties to garner support.
It's got nothing to do with the failure of third parties to work for it or cooperate with each other.
Wake up Ric.
What three things have the Democrats done , with their majorities, in the past 2 years, that make you the most proud?
They haven't done a lot because, as I'm sure you are aware, they don't have a veto-proof majority and the Republicans have been blocking legislation.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707280005
Latching onto Republican talking point, media report "do-nothing" Congress, not GOP obstruction
Several media outlets have reported recent claims by Senate Republicans, President Bush, and members of his administration that Democrats are currently presiding, or may soon preside, over a "do-nothing Congress" without challenging the claim in any way. These claims are apparently part of a strategy laid out in a "talking-points memorandum" reportedly "circulat[ed]" by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that advises Republicans to attack congressional Democrats for their supposed lack of legislative accomplishments. In fact, Republicans have blocked Senate action at an unprecedented rate -- apparently putting into action a strategy that Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) described as "obstructionist."
A July 24 Washington Times article reported that Kyl was "meeting with members" of the Senate Republican Conference "yesterday and today to disseminate a message critical of Democrats for endlessly debating the Iraq war, stalling judicial nominations and squandering time on at least 300 investigations of the Bush administration." The article also reported that Kyl had "circulat[ed]" a talking-points memo to Republicans that "criticize[d]" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "for letting legislative priorities languish." Kyl, Lott, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) reinforced this message during an afternoon press conference (subscription required) on July 24 in which they criticized Democrats by asserting that "we [Congress] are literally doing nothing," in Cornyn's words.
But according to a July 20 McClatchy Newspapers article, "This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before," as Media Matters for America documented. These actions are consistent with the acknowledgement by Lott in an April 18 Roll Call article (subscription required) that the GOP is employing an "obstructionist" strategy in the Senate: "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. ... For [former Senate Democratic Leader Tom] Daschle (S.D.), it failed. For [then-Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid, it succeeded, and so far it's working for us."
What an imbecilic & lame defense!! 'ctrl-z' claims the Dems "...haven't done a lot because...they don't have a veto-proof majority."
In the very next phrase, he adds, "... and the Republicans have been blocking legislation."
In other words, the Dems, with their MAJORITY, can do virtually nothing -- while the Republicans, with their MINORITY, are easily able to block legislation.
So according to ctrl-z, the MINORITY R's are in a strong position where they can control the flow of events, while the MAJORITY D's are helpless to do anything about it. BWAHahahaha!
"veto - The procedure established under the Constitution by which the President refuses to approve a bill or joint resolution and thus prevents its enactment into law. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it originated. The President usually returns a vetoed bill with a message indicating his reasons for rejecting the measure. The veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House."
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/veto.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When the Democrats took control of the House and proposed a long list of legislative initiatives after the 2006 elections, we eagerly watched hoping that at last Congress would change the direction that Bush forced on us. Once elected Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi immediately took impeachment off the table to eliminate cries of partisan politics.The Senate was in Democratic hands by one vote; that being Joe Lieberman who turned out to be a Republican in drag, yet the press and Republicans characterized it as a Democratically controlled Congress. The obstructionist minded Republicans set the battle lines that would mark this session as typical of do nothing legislators to reposition their election hopes for 2008.
Thus was born the Republican policy of using a procedural rule to bottle up bills, Motion to Recommit to stymie legislation the Democrats authored that in any way varied from their narrow agenda. The procedural ploy was in a way proof that the Republicans can use the rules of Governance more effectively than their counterparts and made life hell for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
"House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year. And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up."
Couple this well planned maneuver with Lieberman's power over legislation backed by Cheney's tie breaking authority as Vice President, and finally dangle the sword of Damocles over their heads, President Bush's veto pen; which he never used until the Democrats had legislation before him, and you get the perfect formula for bottling up governance. Democrats and Independents could only watch as their elected Representatives expressed exasperation and ultimately passed bills that ran counter to their promises like FISA revisions, War funding with no timetables, Oil drilling legislation, etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-peete/democratic-congress-needs_b_128494.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007
Senate tied in knots by filibusters
By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.
The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.
Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.
By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.
This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.
Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced an all-night session on the Iraq war this week to draw attention to what Democrats called Republican obstruction.
"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."
Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html
You still laughing?
Yes, I'm still laughing at your genuine stupidity.
Pay attention to the following -- you'll learn something. (Notice that it only takes about 8 sentences to explain this, in contrast to your wasting many paragraphs by copying articles that don't get to the essential point.)
The Democrats could have stopped all funding for the Iraq War at any time they chose to. They could have stopped the PATRIOT Act, or the MCA, or the FISA amendment, or the bailout, or anything else. This is because you only need 41 Senate seats to filibuster ANYTHING. Even at their low, the Dems had at least 45 seats.
Bills don't go to the president until they've passed both houses. Therefore, being able to block a bill in just the Senate is enough to block it, PERIOD. What the president does is irrelevant, because he gets no chance to act until the Congress gives him a bill to sign or veto.
After 2006, the Dems could have stopped any given piece of legislation, via their simple majority in the House.
Your whole argument is moronic, because you're claiming that the MINORITY is all-powerful, while the MAJORITY is helpless. Overriding presidential vetoes has nothing to do with the real dynamics -- that's just a loser's excuse.
Err-oll the Bottom - Could you please read this posting to RichM? I know you're close because I always see you under him. If it's not too much trouble please read him my two posts above also.
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RichM,
I'm absolutely amazed. I've never before known anyone who could write but not read.
It explains so much. Your constant reiteration of the same talking points. Your inability to understand even the simplest of points. And I imagine that the frustration of having to deal with your disability has given you a lot of anxiety.
I sympathize.
This sub-thread started with me responding to what 3 things have the Dems done that I liked the most, not why didn't the Dems stop FISA etc. I responded that they haven't done much & why.
Your little tirade above is about why they passed bills the Republicans wanted. I've been going into why they didn't pass bills Dems wanted.
See the difference? No, of course you don't. You're RichM.
To repeat:
"Thus was born the Republican policy of using a procedural rule to bottle up bills, Motion to Recommit to stymie legislation the Democrats authored that in any way varied from their narrow agenda. The procedural ploy was in a way proof that the Republicans can use the rules of Governance more effectively than their counterparts and made life hell for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
"House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year. And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up."
Couple this well planned maneuver with Lieberman's power over legislation backed by Cheney's tie breaking authority as Vice President, and finally dangle the sword of Damocles over their heads, President Bush's veto pen; which he never used until the Democrats had legislation before him, and you get the perfect formula for bottling up governance."
RichM
Bingo. You nailed him to the wall. Unfortunately you [as well as I] are attempting to communicate to him by reason and logic and facts, things which he will never recognize as being relevant since he is blinded by his loyalty to Obama and the lofty rhetoric that Obama espouses. As Henry Fonda said to juror #9, who was trying unsuccessfully to communicate to juror #7, played by Jack Warden in the classic film Twelve Angry Men: "He can't hear you. He never will."
"The Democrats could have stopped all funding for the Iraq War at any time they chose to. They could have stopped the PATRIOT Act, or the MCA, or the FISA amendment, or the bailout, or anything else. This is because you only need 41 Senate seats to filibuster ANYTHING. Even at their low, the Dems had at least 45 seats."
The Democrats are fragmented. Not a lock-step party like the Republican. Realize one thing---they wouldn't need to stop funding the Iraq war, or vote on the USA Patriot act, the MCA, the FISA amendment, or the bailout if Al Gore was our President these last 8 years. There probably would've been no attack on 9-11, because Gore would've been paying attention. No Iraq war, no erosion of civil liberties, no Afghanistan war, no FISA amendment, and no need for a bailout because SEC regulations would still be enforced. We might be discussing global warming right now, instead of all this Bush-shite.
RichM
Excellent rebuttal to ctrl-z's specious statements.
'Err-oll the Bottom'
I haven't noticed you lying about donation figures lately. Did you sprain your typing finger?
Out-of-control-z
To quote one of the heroes of the conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, there you go again. Chris Hedges, to use your favorite word, is lying about Obama's ties to the vested interests. So, apparently, in your estimation, is John Pilger and Pam Martens. Here is yet another article, this one by the outstanding investigative reporter Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine, revealing how Obama, that alleged populist, is in bed with Wall Street. But according to the [allegedly] omniscient out-of-control-z, everyone is, to use his favorite word, "lying" about Obama except out-of-control-z. I, along with other readers of Common Dreams, will accept what these credible journalists have said concerning Obama [as well as what Obama himself has said in the debates, as I had mentioned in my other comments] compared to the less than objective viewpoints of out-of-control-z.
http://www.alternet.org/story/94334/big_business_is_making_sure_it_wins_the_presidency/
Err-oll the Bottom
Nice try. No, I've often accused others of cherry-picking or misrepresenting donation data. You're the only one I've accused of lying. I've already reposted what you wrote once and you responded, so don't go trying to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about or that it's part of a general trend.
Out-of-control-z
Wonderful job in not responding to Matt Taibbis's article which discusses how Obama is in bed with the investment and financial institutions, which confirms what the article had written about Obama that I had had posted that you are alluding to, which was written by Pam Martens. Your faith in Obama is quite touching except when it gets in the way of facts. And when that happens, all that is left is for to engage in your usual juvenile ad hominem attacks or, to use what appears to be your favorite word, "lying".
Err-oll the Bottom -
You didn't post an article that lied, you lied about Obama donors and then attempted to back it up with an article.
I guess you figure since no one will bother going back 3 weeks you can claim whatever you want.
Is calling a liar a liar an ad hominem attack?
Out-of-control-z
There you go again. I quoted directly from the article that I mentioned three weeks ago that was written by Pam Martens. When I posted her article you then tried to somehow discredit what she had written even though it had referred directly to the site that you mentioned. The point, of course, is that Ms Martens' article, and those of John Pilger and Chris Hedges and Matt Taibbi all state basically the same thing which is that Obama is in the tank for Wall Street. But the only thing that you can do is claim that they are all lying and only the all knowing out-of-control-z [allegedly] knows that Obama is as pure as the driven snow. I think not, as many of us at Common dreams are not as brainwashed as you appear to be.
You didn't post her article, your original post didn't even mention it. You only referred to the article when I called you on your bs. I'm not saying someone in an article lied, I'm saying you lied & are doing it again.
But you know that.
The two party system is a false paradigm. Its who is funding both parties who really runs things. Those are the people we should be concerned about as they are the ones implementing the divide and conquer strategy while they sweep up the spoils.
yes, let's bash the democrats while we can. of course, we should always bash the repulsicans. however, in this whole tirade of comments regarding a third party, not a single fucking word about a viable third party candidate, exclusive of ctrl-z, who, as i, wonders why we only hear from a non-viable third party candidate at each election cycle. if you people want a third party, get off your asses now, go recruit your VIABLE candidate now, lay the groundwork, then perhaps we can have a future discussion about a third party. think, people. don't just spout.
Exactly!
This telling us that “all Americans” believe such and such is to condition us into believing that we are alone in thinking that things must be wrong and are thus subjected to subtle peer pressure to conform to the view that is being espoused. Its prep work for more and more encroachments on our vanishing liberties.
Erroll October 5th, 2008 4:51 pm:
“The bumper sticker that Obama supporters should be displaying on their vehicles: OBAMA 08: THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.”
If I wanted evil, I'd vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil?
As for voting for a third party (in my case I'm voting for the Green candidate: Cynthia McKinney) I don't want on my conscience that I helped put someone in office that continues the massacres in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and wherever else we have our volunteer military fighting poor, brown people. Killing those people to help the corporations maintain their hegemony over the world. Even if one of the two evils makes it into office (and they surely will), I still have to live with myself and I couldn't/wouldn't knowing I helped put them there.
ding!!
Today I drove under a bridge as a train thundered overhead on an overpass. The train had dozens of tanks on it. I thought about how militarized our country is becoming and how both Wall Street parties (Dims/Pugs) are in perfect agreement on this issue. The Pugs wants to focus on Iraq and the Dim wants to focus on Afghanistan.
Only a fool would deny that both parties are for war and ever larger military budgets, bailing out the wealthy criminal Wall Street bankers and further curbing civil rights. Fools are always in abundance. I cite the posts above as evidence. Don't argue with a fool unless you want to become one. Whatever.
Ric Haveabrew sez:
"Don't argue with a fool unless you want to become one."
Okay.
[turdpartytroll]
The only way out of the Duopoly nightmare caused by lesser-evilists and Demopologists is to go into your voting booth on Nov 4 and do the following:
Close your eyes and chant Ralph NADER's name three times while pressing the button next to his name. Then he will appear and use his MAGIC POWERS to end war, dismantle capitalism, and give you your very own pony!
[/troll]
And why does he have to use magic? Because no matter how many of you idiots vote for him, he's not going to be President.
Voting third party is like making a wish. Only fools and children think it's actually going to accomplish anything.
kitty_tc -
voting third party sends a signal to the dims that progressive, consitutionalist voters cannot be taken for granted. also, there is a chance the Greens could make the 5% they need for public funding. obviously, given the inexorable rightward drift toward fascist corporatism the last two decades, having a dim congress or dim president has barely slowed this hellish trajectory we're on.
ctrl-z : there is a lot of disinfo at wikipedia and youtube these days, as well as massive purging and censoring, especially as it relates to the patriot movement here in the US. now, if you use the word "Constitution" when you are interrogated by the cops/feds, you are considered especially suspect.
there is a massive propaganda effort paid for with our tax dollars to spoonfeed Americans the bullshit they take for objective news. it's psyops, and wikipedia and google have been compromised. taking back our republic will be no easy task.
why don't you watch one of jones' movies, or listen to his 4 hour show one day. they're extraordinarily informative and engaging. much better than the never-willing-to-offend democracy now.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
kitty tc
Like the usual Obama fanatics, you "hope" that Obama "might" might bring about peace, despite all evidence to the contrary. When all else fails, like the usual Obama supporters, you engage in the usual ad hominem attacks ["no matter how many of you idiots vote for him"] instead of actually comparing what Obama stands for to Nader's stand on the issues. In all likelihood, that is due to the fact that to do so would reveal your candidate to be, as I mentioned earlier, a fraud, a charlatan, a chimera, a poseur, who has effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people like yourself by claiming to be an [alleged] agent of hope and change when the reality is that his policies will offer no hope for the Afghan, Iranian, Pakistani, and Russian people while the change that he offers is actually more of the status quo.
Explain to me how we will NOT end up with either Obama or McCain if you vote for Nader.
Explain to me how we will NOT end up with either Obama or McCain if I DONT vote for Nader?
Better yet, explain to me what will happen when Obama is president?
KDelphi inquires, apparently in all seriousness, "what will happen when Obama is president." One does not have to consult the oracle at Delphi to understand what would happen if this took place as the answer is obviously revealed in Obama's own words and positions on the issues. At the presidential debate it became obvious that Obama's intention was to present himself to the American people, as Gore Vidal once noted, just as much to the right as John McCain. Both candidates agreed in the debate that Wall Street must be bailed out with all possible speed, despite the fact that the working class would bear the burden of this enormous cost. "We have to move swiftly and we have to move wisely" Obama declared, though why such speed was necessary to save the banks and the lending institutions and not those people whose homes were in foreclosure and whose working class standards were becoming more and more eroded, the [alleged] agent of hope and change would [or could not] say. On the domestic front, it should be apparent that Obama would do everything to help the vested interests and little if anything to help the needs of the working class and the poor.
On foreign policy, Obama wanted it known that he will be just as militant as McCain and that the United States has the right to send its troops to anyplace in the world for whatever reason he sees fit when he said that what should be learned in Iraq was "we should never hesitate to use military force and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American president safe, never hesitate to use military force." Obama's eagerness to engage in such bellicose rhetoric should not come as such a great surprise since this is the same person who told CNN's Candy Crowley, when asked if "there's anything that's happened in the past 7 1/2 years that the U.S. needs to apologize for in terms of foreign policy", brazenly told the reporter that "No, I don't believe in the U.S. apologizing. As I said I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. We didn't keep our eye on the ball in Afghanistan. But, you know, hindsight is 20/20, and I'm much more interested in looking forward rather than looking backwards." He added. apparently without a trace of irony, that the United States "remains overwhelmingly a force of good in the world."
One of the misconceptions that Obama is somehow vastly different than McCain should have been cleared up during that debate as evidenced by Obama's very own words when he said:
* On the financial crisis: "I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility."
* On spending: "Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused."
* On taxation: "John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right."
* On the federal budget: "John is right, we have to make cuts."
* On Iraq: "Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops [Obama may wish to ask the Iraqis if they believe that sacrifice to have been worthwhile] and our military families."
* On threatening military action in Pakistan: "John... you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they have to say."
* On Iran: "Senator McCain is absolutely right right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran" [though he seems to have absolutely no problem tolerating a nuclear Israel].
As the above statements make abundantly clear, there is very little difference between Obama and McCain on both domestic and foreign policy proving, as Vidal has noted in the past, that there is a two party system in this country, the right wing and the ultra right wing. One should pay particular attention to the fact that during the entire debate Obama never once gave any justification as to why he should be considered a populist candidate while instead paying homage to the financial institutions and to the continuation of American imperial power and the propping up of the major corporations on the backs of the working class, both of which, to answer your question, will undoubtedly happen in an Obama administration.
I see the MSM has done a good job on you. Are you a long-time reader of commondreams? Perhaps you should do a search for "Democrats should thank Nader, not trash him" as they continue to do and blame Nader for Kerry's failure, for Gore's failure and on a good day, global warming.
If Nader wasn't running and we truly had this two-party system out of law with only two candidates, I wouldn't vote out of protest. Nader (and McKinney and Barr) gives me something America is lacking these days: choice.
Madcow
You have raised this inane question at least three times. If you actually read what I have written as well as, among others, davidpeace's comments at 8:41 pm, very slowly and carefully, you might actually discover that there is very little difference between Obama and McCain, which is why we are not voting for the covert warmonger Barack Obama. It is called acting on one's conscience and integrity, attributes which both Obama and McCain are sadly deficient. As I and davidpeace have said, apparently to no avail, we can both sleep a hell of a lot better knowing that we did not help elect a militant, imperialistic candidate such as Obama and McCain. You, like the other Obama fanatics, wish to believe that myself and others are wasting our votes for a third party or independent or socialist candidate while we believe that it is obvious that you are wasting yours voting for that [alleged] agent of hope [though not for the Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Iranians, Russians, and whatever other countries that Obama may decide to send U.S. forces into] whose claim of change has apparently beguiled so many people like yourself.
For your argument to work you must completely dissolve all differences between the candidates. We all agree that it will be either Obama or McCain come January (assuming the shrub decides to leave). So, if you choose to vote for someone else, as a protest, or for your "conscience", the only way you're NOT voting by default for the "lesser or greater of two evils" is if the two viable candidates are exactly the same. You tell me you refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils", that you will be able to live with yourself later---fine. Just realize that these two are NOT the same, just like Bush and Gore were NOT the same. You can vote for whomever you want---just don't fool yourself into believing you're doing some great or moral thing for the future of our country. If you really want to help this country, you'll do everything in your power to keep that neofascist nutcase Palin out of the Whitehouse.
And Gore Vidal is supporting Obama too.
Detainees, dirty bombs, hanging chads, naked Iraqi prisoners, Katrina, torture, signing statements, Guantanamo, Diebold, extraordinary rendition, Copper Green, black prisons, coalition provisional authority, undisclosed location, unmanned predator, 9-11, yellowcake, war on terror, Tora Bora, Iraq war, WMD, Enron, posse comitatus act, Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, the green zone, Falluja, Blackwater, anthrax, enemy combatants, depleted uranium, USA Patriot Act, shock and awe, warrantless wiretaps, national intelligence estimate, preventive war, embedded reporters, operation anaconda, axis of evil...
Thanks George.
madcow writes:
"Detainees, dirty bombs, hanging chads, naked Iraqi prisoners, Katrina, torture, signing statements, Guantanamo, Diebold, extraordinary rendition, Copper Green, black prisons, coalition provisional authority, undisclosed location, unmanned predator, 9-11, yellowcake, war on terror, Tora Bora, Iraq war, WMD, Enron, posse comitatus act, Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, the green zone, Falluja, Blackwater, anthrax, enemy combatants, depleted uranium, USA Patriot Act, shock and awe, warrantless wiretaps, national intelligence estimate, preventive war, embedded reporters, operation anaconda, axis of evil' ... thanks Duopoly
that's a fitting Hallmark greeting card for these "end times" we face. :-(
And Al Gore was just the lesser of two evils?
No, I dont think that he was. Gore broke progressive hearts.
The Dems didnt seem to want to fight for the presidency at all!
I left another party (not gOP) to vote against W and for Gore. I stayed to try to get W out, (Kerry). It did not work either time.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecitng a different result. I think Obama is another Bill Clinton. How can you not expect disappointment??
You assume that a totally bought and paid for, corporate candidate is going to do all this "progessive stuff" you want done?
Why would he? I'm sorry, but I just do not understand it. I cannot believe that, after 8 yrs of W, teh Dems are settling for this. Well, I am not.
"a totally bought and paid for, corporate candidate"
I don't think he's totally bought and paid for. Most of his money comes from over two million online donors. This is totally unprecedented in American politics. Sure, you can focus on the opensecrets list of corporate donors, but that list only amounts to maybe 6% of his total money. Is that bought and paid?
Al Gore is a fraud, pimping his universal carbon tax to "save the world" that will be controlled by the Central Banks, as a means to usher in a New World Banking control grid, all the while doing nothing to control genetic engineering (pushed by the Gates foundation and others) or nuclear energy (the false carbon savior), both of which pose far greater hazards to humankind.
How is it that George Bush and other neocons are suddenly so interested in saving the planet from carbon dioxide (though they are doing nothing to reduce it, but sure as hell want to tax the people based on some fraudulent, control oriented, "carbon footprint). Plus Al caved way too easily and quickly on the election theft in 2000. I never voted for Gore, and I never will.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
Your post has a lot of terms used by right wingers so I looked up the name on your link. Just like your other post, it hits a right-winger.
"Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American paleoconservative radio host and documentary filmmaker. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM and FM radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large internet based audience. Jones has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media outlets, while RussiaToday has referred to him as an investigative journalist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio)
The bumper sticker that Obama supporters should be displaying on their vehicles: OBAMA 08: THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. Not exactly the best reason to give one's vote for someone running for president.
Exactly the right reason because one of them will be president...That's reality. So why would you opt for one who is far worse than the other!???
Voting Nader won't make Nader president and bring in his approach, and neither will it advance a serious 3rd party.
Votine Nader will give McCain/Palin the White House.
getreal inquires "So why would you opt for one who is far worse than the other?" Because of the simple reason that voting for a lesser of two evils means that one still ends up with an evil no matter how much he may attempt to rationalize it. This is like saying that despite Bush having killed an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis he should be considered the lesser of two evils because Bill Clinton managed to "only" cause 1.5 million Iraqis to be killed because of the sanctions that he imposed in the 1990s. The point, of course, is that if Obama is elected president and he decided to carry out his promise of sending more American troops to Afghanistan that policy decision will not be too bad because not as many Afghans will be killed as have Iraqis. What Obama supporters should ask their candidate is why is it somehow more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Or if Obama decides to emulate Bush by sending Special Forces into Pakistan that should somehow be excuse because not as many Pakistanis will be killed as compared to the total amount of Iraqis who have already been killed under Bush.
A vote for Nader means that I will be secure in the knowledge that I will not have voted for an overt warmonger like McCain or, perhaps worse, a more insidious warmonger like Obama, who will claim that sending American soldiers into Afghanistan and/or Pakistan will be done for [allegedly] humanitarian reasons, even though the end result will be more innocent Afghans and Pakistanis will have died, like the Iraqis, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
"Because of the simple reason that voting for a lesser of two evils means that one still ends up with an evil no matter how much he may attempt to rationalize it."
Explain to me how we will NOT end up with one of two "evils" if you vote for Nader.
Madcow
You seem to be doing a great job of ignoring the fact that an evil will most certainly take place [as Afghans, Pakistanis, as well as, perhaps, Iranians and Russians, would most certainly confirm] if the militant Obama gets elected, as I explained [apparently to no avail] in my earlier comment. You, like all the other Obama supporters, always want to focus on the more overt militant statements of McCain while pretending that your candidate is free of any bellicose rhetoric himself. To use a legal term regarding Obama, the statements that he has issued in the past regarding foreign policy and his emphasis that the military option is always open, speak for themselves as well as being a damning indictment of how militant and imperialistic the [alleged] anti-war candidate actually is.
You also seem, like so many liberals, to be placing party over principle. I will stick with my conscience by voting for a candidate such as Nader who has said will change the foreign policy of the United States vis a vis the Middle East and who has said that, unlike Obama and McCain, would withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq within six months, thus ensuring that less American soldiers will end up in VA hospitals across this country and that no American forces, either civilian or military, will be patrolling the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Explain to me how we will NOT end up with either Obama or McCain if you vote for Nader.
Explain to me how we wil NOT end up with Obama or McCain if I DONT vote for Nader.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
He lost in 1996
He lost in 2000
He lost in 2004
Can you help Ralph lose again?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
As Jesse Jackson put it in his article some weeks days ago:
“We need the leadership Barack will bring. However, the burden of fulfilling the Dream, mending the broken promise, falls on all of us. I recall the story of a meeting that labor leader A. Philip Randolph had with President Franklin Roosevelt regarding a long list of discriminatory practices blacks were facing in society and the workplace. He clearly presented the case to the president, who listened carefully and responded. Roosevelt said: "I can't just give you the rights you seek. I wish I could. I agree with everything you've said to me. Now go out and make me do it." Barack will set the tone. He will provide the vision and inspiration to move forward. But it is up to us to do the work, to demand the change that must come if the Dream is to be fulfilled. We must make it happen.
Positive activism has always been the key component in the creative tension that leads to change. The tools are ours - demonstration, legislation, litigation - and each has a place in the work of building a just, equitable society. It is the effort of committed citizens engaging in positive activism that helps make a president great."
Also:
Fear defeats more people than any other one thing in the world.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
So as June Jordan put it: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
Be kind to yourself. Take heart. Then organize, organize and organize
I once voted for Jackson. Perhaps I still would, except for the fact that I would never vote for a preacher now.But, he's alot more progressive than Obama
Do you also support Jacksons' statements that Obama ia "talking down" to blacks and that he wante to "castrate him"?
Unemployment is now at least 11% when measured properly--not the way the US gov does.
After the Wall Street Givaway Act and others of similar ilk, and adding the likely increase of Corporate and consumer debt, the daily overseas borrow amount will increase to almost $5 Billion--double today's.
Oil has pulled-back to just under $100/bbl, but the damage the higher earlier price coupled with the continuing historicly high price continues to drive a positive feedback loop within the economy--less purchasing power leads to lower sales, leading to layoffs and business closures which leads to less purchasing power, leading to lower sales which causes futher layoffs and closures which leads to less purchasing power..... It's a downward spiral in an already damaged economy that has few reserve resources to use to bootstrap itself up.
The hedge funds' and their bank allies' massive Bear Raid on the financial sector which blew the Housing Bubble to smithereens, eliminating over $4 Trillion in less than 6 months It's possible another $2 Trillion could go by year's end. This will reinforce the positive feedback loop mentioned above. The wreckage is massive and the lawsuits will be aplenty. The DOW has yet to "correct" in the same amount as its teat the housing bubble, which means it could easily be at 7500--or lower--come January 20, 2009, and the same goes for the other exchanges. Rooting the systemic problems from the system will cost another 2-3 trillion at minimum.
The overstretched military annually uses the same amount of oil as Sweeden, and maintenence of the whole Empire and the national security state will be about 1.4 Trillion for 2007-08, and likely more for 2008-09. This is another drain on the economy and contributes to the positive feedback loop.
There will be no chance of an economic recovery until Big War and Big Money are put in their place. The downward spiral of the economy has just begun. In essence, we are at October 1929, for camparison's sake. And the global warming wild card has yet to be laid on the table. The only tools to fix the mess are not in the box of either main presidential candidate, which is to say that things will be worse by 2012. Current and potential immigrants are already voting with their feet--leaving and not entering. If your job is in the discretionary side of the economy, odds are you won't have that job by 2012 and will be lucky to have any job.
The future is very dark. And anyone saying it isn't is lying to you or is very ill-informed. Nation writer Bill Greider's analysis and suggested ideas are a place to start looking at what our future discourse ought to include.
Thanks Derek,
I guess I'm not very tech savvy. Switched to flat view: problem solved.
z -
i use the flat view due to the problems you cite. i like having the oldest at the top and then scroll to the bottom to see what's new. the best way (for me) is to address one's comment specifically to the person/handle, as I do here. having several conversations all over the place doesn't work for me. this whole thread is just one continuous discussion, imo.
ctrl-z: this reaching out to a third party is both fatalistic and idealistic at the same time. a new politics will never come into being if we continue to cling to the old. i know that third parties aren't "ready" due to a number of issues (mostly corporate power); but our not voting our consciences and aspirations will relegate them to permanent inconsequentiality.
today i finally got off my butt and gave nader $100, sheehan $50, mckinney $50 (i already donate regularly to the greens), and $25 to a real conservative congressional candidate endorsed by ron paul.
peace
derek,
If voting your conscience results in a right-wing Supreme Court, a war in Iran and an abortion ban, you'll have real world consequences as a result of your ideals. Is that an exchange you're willing to make?
Are you that selfish?
In case you missed it, we already have a right wing Supreme Court with the last two additions of Alito and Roberts: both installed thanks for the majority Democratic Party who allowed the nominations rather than do their job by offering a filibuster. Do you offer anything on this site other than name calling when someone disagrees with you? Grow up.
Chris DeNewMon sez:
"Do you offer anything on this site other than name calling when someone disagrees with you? Grow up."
In response to a post about the consequences of a McCain Presidency.
Chris, are there no mirrors in your home?
Chris DeG.
Intelligently and persuasively stated.
Err-oll the bottom is back!
ctrl-z -
though there is a certain rationality to your response, i sense mostly the use of fear. i don't have a lot of fear anymore, especially as it relates to following my conscience. i will not let fear dictate who i support politically. the US has an enormous comeuppance that is coming due. unfortunately, most of the people won't know who or what hit them when that judgment (or final exploitation) is forced upon them. US citizens have grown up on MSM and can no longer think for themselves.
i have a good store of precious metals and storable foods. i suggest you do the same. the time for chatty debating is soon coming to an end.
I can hardly wait for her alter ego to kick in...do I hear an amen from trans?
coyote the cutie is back!
Just as cute as a cuddly bunny.
Derek, I agree, fear drives his or her life.
Hello Chris:
Does selling off my meager stock holdings to invest in gold and silver and storable foods make me a "fear monger" ? I think that is a personal call, and is based on one's life experiences and the kind of information you have been exposed to. I do know that the MSM wants to keep the public doped up and unaware of the bigger, uglier picture. This is mostly so that the elites can continue to rip us off one last time before the US plunges into hyperstagflation, societal breakdown, and likely hot martial law.
Did you know that if we declare war on Russia that we can cancel our international debts?
Did you know that state senators used to be nominated by the state assembly in each capitol until they were federalized after the JP Morgan-Rockefeller banking crisis that was engineered just prior to the Federal Reserve's creation in 1913? (Federalizing the senators made it easier for them to be controlled by financial interests, as they would now have expensive campaigns to fund.)
I heard another lousy NPR piece where the interviewee said that what lies at the heart of the banking bailout passage is the need for publically financed elections, so that representatives don't have all the indebtedness to the rich; the NPR host carefully avoided responding to the assertion.
NPR, brought to you by Cargill, Monsanto, Archer Daniels, Midland, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Lockheed Martin. No liberals they. More left gatekeepers, as is CD much of the time. But at least we have this board.
I just read CD editor Chris Brown's letter to the CD community that Obama is our best hope. I know that is the official POV here; and I know that there was some serious censorship last Jan-March 2008 here on this board where a lot of bright people were banned or censored because of their effective 3rd party advocacy. You can't really build a coalition behind Obama with the kind of scapegoating and fear tactics that they use. People need to vote their hearts and minds. Our continually giving in to fear and other beltway-oriented manipulations is central to the problem we face, imo.
All the best to you and ctrl-z, and the moderators here at CD.
Peace.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
Derek-
I think it is false logic to support a 911 conspiracy while at the same time saying that "voting for the lesser of two evils is a lesser vote for an evil or a lesser evil doer"...or however Bush would say it.
I see that as a contradiction and although I agree with you and people like Alex Jones, I don't agree with your so called radicalism which says that all is lost.
That to me is not radical, it is giving up. I hear this false macho posturing from people who are "stockpiling" and getting ready for who knows what, but really, that is not the real world.
I think way too many people are stuck spending way too much time playing video games or looking at crap on the net. It is easy to talk the talk but if you walked the walk you would know that Obama is a far better possibility for change and that McCain/Palin has all the makings of a disaster.
A vote for Nader right now is irresponsible, immature and doggone ridiculous. Most of the people supporting Nader right now need to get their heads out of the books and the internets and get involved in real life.
If you really are a Nader supporter I think it is time to move out of your parents' basement, figuratively or otherwise.
Do you oppose weather reports that tell people a hurricane is going to hit? What about tornado warnings?
Is it a use of fear to warn someone about what is coming? To let people know they should do what they can to avoid danger?
Don't let fear dicatate who you support politically. Use common sense.
Does anyone else find the "reply" function confusing?
It makes the forum non-linear. I used to being able to check the time stamp for when I made a comment and just read the comments that followed. Now I find myself jumping all over the page. I have a much harder time following other people's discussions as well. It seems to create redundant parallel discussion cliques. Plus, not everyone uses it, so some responses appear under the comment, and some appear later in the forum.
I am finding it more difficult to find out if anyone has replied to my comments.
Any thoughts? I like the concept in theory, but the application has problems. Can this be improved?
Face reality , folks.
A vote for Obama, is an understandable decision. Just stop acting like he's a big "change" agent.
He is as corporate as they come.
The only "changes" Ive heard him talk about lately, is how he is goin g to "have to scale back all those social programs"--and they were lame to begin with.
Why? Because of the $850 billion dollars that he voted for.
Ciruclar logic if there ever was any.
As has been abudantly pointed out by numerous previous posts, this is a bi-partisn mess up. Bill Clinton and his then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin ( former Wall Street Bankster)assisted the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act and Gramm,Leach, Blilly.
These two legislative abominations were the primary pieces of law that legalized the fraudulent dealings engaged in by the Wall Street boyz these past 8 years or so that have led to this crisis. Of course the Republican rubber stamp congress and Senate approved these perverse laws, but, like spectators watching a gang rape of some helpless maid ("We the People")on a pool table, the Democratic leadership cheered them on.
Nader/Gonzalez
or
McKinney/Clemente
in 08
Poet
poet
Vote for Nader
get McCain.
Vote McKinney
outcome's the same.
You may be angry
'bout the bailout
but if you don't vote Obama
you get the lout -
McSame.
Yeah sure. poet's vote is like that movie, th last voter on earth.
What is the strategy , to convince people to vote Obama, here?
Does Sen. Obama know that you guys are talking like this? Cause it is not helping him, in the least.
(not you specifically, ctrl-z)
coyotebreath--Since you insist
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_6143352http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/04/sca...
http://ca.rand.org/stats/economics/foreclose.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/BUVR10MDDO.DTL
http://www.chapa.org/?q=foreclosure_view_details/22
http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol28no4/28405foreclosures.html
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2000/0100bradley.html
http://www.propertycrossroads.com/foreclosure-scams-prey-on-the-elderly/
OI hope they work. If not, well, you'll just have to buy me a new pc. LOL
You should have proof-read your histogram. It shows the Democrats controlling the White House during the G.W. Bush years.
And at work today,,,,,
Even the Republicans were bashing Palin!
Can you say Loserrrrrr!!!!!???
Coffeelover
Too much to say - so little time.
Do You hear those mantra like repetitions on behalf of the republicon 'change' couple? The choir that tells the mentally most challenged prospective voters that the republicon party of mcpain & callin' has nothing to do with bush's repubs and that we all should get over the biggest f-up in the history of human mankind and move on with the oddest couple ever to appear on the political landscape.
Whereas mcpain is just pathetic, callin is so hypocritic there is only one word left to use. Blasphemy. Discussing this blasphemy a friend told me to imagine a guy that was married and had beaten his wife to death. When he re-marries and his new wife finds out about his past he then responds: 'That's the past. I have nothing to do with this any more. Let's just focus on the future.'
My take on all this is the following: The constitution has been discarded in 2000, when the PNAC took over the country after eight years of preparations. You will find out that mcpain & callin' are decoys, whereas the 'female' part of the laurel and hardy impostors will enable the repiglicons to rig
the upcoming 'american idol' style elections as they did twice before, only to tell the world:
'Well did You not see how excited the american people were about callin'? The voters wanted change and they got it.' That's the more civilized version.
George Noori had a caller last night that came up with this 'vision' (very close to mine): Bush will declare the state of emergency based on the economic crash that will occur in december. Whatever You voted for will be obsolete, even a newly elected pres. obama will see the white shambles only from the outside. Who in this by god abandoned world will stop this? Karma will. Karma is going to get all those weak minded earthlings. Real mushrooms will grow out of the repuplicons heads, as You can witness with other species on the planet. Skip the United in the States of America, the game is over. The powers in charge are certainly not a few million voters. It is called military industrial complex and all I can say is: Good Luck in ridding Yourself of those guys. Others tried before.
Forget about elections - the only vote You have is at the register