Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn Praise of a Rocky Transition
In a moment of high panic in late September, the US Treasury unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are taxed—a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that "Treasury had no authority to issue the [tax change] notice."
Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has negotiated with many of the country's banks. According to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables the deals, "Any use of these funds for any purpose other than lending—for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc.—is a violation of the act." Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used.
Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure.
Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. "There is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama. That's true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration makes threatens to hobble Obama's ability to make good on his promise of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax revenue is almost the same sum as Obama's renewable energy program. Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth.
Yes, there is only one president at a time, but that president needed the support of powerful Democrats, including Obama, to get the bailout passed. Now that it is clear that the Bush administration is violating the terms to which both parties agreed, the Democrats have not just the right but a grave responsibility to intervene forcefully.
I suspect that the real reason the Democrats are so far failing to act has less to do with presidential protocol than with fear: fear that the stock market, which has the temperament of an overindulged 2-year-old, will throw one of its world-shaking tantrums. Disclosing the truth about who is receiving federal loans, we are told, could cause the cranky market to bet against those banks. Question the legality of equity deals and the same thing will happen. Challenge the $140 billion tax giveaway and mergers could fall through. "None of us wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great Depression," explained one unnamed Congressional aide.
More than that, the Democrats, including Obama, appear to believe that the need to soothe the market should govern all key economic decisions in the transition period. Which is why, just days after a euphoric victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth transition" and "continuity."
Take Obama's pick for chief of staff. Despite the Republican braying about his partisanship, Rahm Emanuel, the House Democrat who received the most donations from the financial sector, sends an unmistakably reassuring message to Wall Street. When asked on This Week With George Stephanopoulos whether Obama would be moving quickly to increase taxes on the wealthy, as promised, Emanuel pointedly did not answer the question.
This same market-coddling logic should, we are told, guide Obama's selection of treasury secretary. Fox News's Stuart Varney explained that Larry Summers, who held the post under Clinton, and former Fed chair Paul Volcker would both "give great confidence to the market." We learned from MSNBC's Joe Scarborough that Summers is the man "the Street would like the most."
Let's be clear about why. "The Street" would cheer a Summers appointment for exactly the same reason the rest of us should fear it: because traders will assume that Summers, champion of financial deregulation under Clinton, will offer a transition from Henry Paulson so smooth we will barely know it happened. Someone like FDIC chair Sheila Bair, on the other hand, would spark fear on the Street—for all the right reasons.
One thing we know for certain is that the market will react violently to any signal that there is a new sheriff in town who will impose serious regulation, invest in people and cut off the free money for corporations. In short, the markets can be relied on to vote in precisely the opposite way that Americans have just voted. (A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans strongly favor "stricter regulations on financial institutions," while just 21 percent support aid to financial companies.)
There is no way to reconcile the public's vote for change with the market's foot-stomping for more of the same. Any and all moves to change course will be met with short-term market shocks. The good news is that once it is clear that the new rules will be applied across the board and with fairness, the market will stabilize and adjust. Furthermore, the timing for this turbulence has never been better. Over the past three months, we've been shocked so frequently that market stability would come as more of a surprise. That gives Obama a window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first. Few will be able to blame him for a crisis that clearly predates him, or fault him for honoring the clearly expressed wishes of the electorate. The longer he waits, however, the more memories fade.
When transferring power from a functional, trustworthy regime, everyone favors a smooth transition. When exiting an era marked by criminality and bankrupt ideology, a little rockiness at the start would be a very good sign.
159 Comments so far
Show AllJim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]
Naomi Klein’s article is a reminder that electing Obama was the easy part. The really hard work for progressive activists begins today, and again tomorrow, and again every day thereafter.
We must stay vigilant, take names, kick butt, and NEVER GIVE UP.
It is alarming that Obama is appointing so many big-business-as-usual politicians, especially Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers.
Also, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma—the list goes on—and their lobbyists have not left town.
Time will tell if Obama has the will to withstand their toxic influence.
The important question is whether “our guys” in Congress—the “good guys”—will tenaciously fight for legislation that is truly transforming and progressive.
True progressive transformation of America must be driven from the grassroots up, not from the top down by business-as-usual career politicians.
We trust our Democratic leaders at our peril.
We must keep our friends close, our enemy closer, and our Democratic representatives closest.
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Bring America Back !!!! I totally agree...the Republican brand is so Bad that open difiance of the Mess they made is perfectly ok !!!!
Literally everything they screwed up nationally and internationally needs reversed immediately, and Obama should welcome all the international leaders and nations who are writing him, contacting him, offering to be a partner on the global scent rather than another blip on the Neocon enemies list !
NO Republican should be given any power position in the next Administration, and Obama is foolhardy to offer it==NO to Chuck Hagel, NO to Clayton Powell, NO to Robert Gates===NO to Hillary Clinton who was FOX TV News darling all during the primaries. She catered to her worst enemies in an effort to gain the nomination.
Bipartisanship can be achieved with honorary ambadassorships, committee assignments, advisory staff positions BUT NO Department Heads at ALL< NO!!
HELLO Naomi Klien,
I talked with Stephen and David Lewis in Canada good socialists and and leaders of the "Democratic Left". Naomi dreams of an egalitarian society where none exists. Naomi Klien dreamed of an election, like so many believed, offered genuine change. A populist outpouring and a belief in a new America, as so many who supported the first black man to achieve the office of president in America.
How unfortunate that so many will be so disappointed. A new call for activism is on the burner from many, who like me, supported Obama because there was no one else in this failed democracy that held out any possibility of change. We new that it was an outside chance that change would occur and as we watch events unfold we now know that it is very much outside indeed! We allowed ourselves to be deceived because there were so many who believed this rubbish that change had come to America.
Obama is in the hands of the DNC the other part of the power controls of the the USA . The USA is not a Democracy it is an oligarchy/plutocracy and the debacle of Wall Street brings that message home with trumpets blaring. The wealthy are in control of of the political system with the rest of the population there to provide the minimum wage energy support the system requires to keep it functioning.
The most difficult issue of all is the environmental one. This will bring up-short all the bastions of power including the Pentagon. This the single most important issue and will unfortunately be moved to the back burner at the cost of humanity, while the greed that is endemic to the USA and its citizens, the "American Dreamers" and those of the G20 who will work to try to save the failing capitalistic system and try to resuscitate the dyeing ideal. This rather than save the human race. The new way of life humanity searches for does not exist on new planets in space, funded by very expensive space adventures that will leave a few people orbiting the Earth in the end watching the chaos and dissolution of a the planet Earth in the final stages of environmental collapse.
Obama is a nice man with a vision of change, not nearly as corrupted as those who have been around longer. However, in the end he is a politician and those people are what they are because of those they must serve to assume the title of leader. A parliamentary system at least holds out the possibility of lesser corruption on a lower level than we have watched with the eight years of Bush and his inner cabal, the most ruthless and corrupt people in the annals of American politics.
Naomi Klein stills holds out the hope for a new American democratic resurgence. I ask Naomi for a bit more pragmatism and realism, she is now old enough to know better. If the intellectual, Stephen Lewis and the NDP who came to power in a parliamentary democracy in Canada, could not reshape Canada and save it from the the likes of Brian Mulroney, than how will Obama, a Democrat, who owes his allegiance to the DNC save his agenda of change for the American people?
Brian Mulroney was a conservative prime minister of Canada in the 80s - he was an American plant in the chair of the prime minister of Canada- who sold Canada to the US with NAFTA and globalization. However, Naomi was a little girl than with an idealistic agenda that has not left her thoughts. She now practices her idealism in the USA since the Canadian reality is too bleak, having elected another lesser conservative mind in the form of Stephen Harper an oilman. I ask Naomi, how will Obama triumph in a plutocracy, where the power elite could not give a damn about the the idea of America building an egalitarian society on its own shores, never mind leading the world out of poverty, hatred and war, when it looks now that he will not be able to do that for the USA.
Those who think Obama can build hope for the the starving masses of this globe as a result of the color of his skin will find that he has bought into his own rhetoric. He genuinely hopes for change but cannot deliver on those wishes, as he has already been told by the DNC who he must first serve, Wall Street and the Pentagon. I hope Naomi will not be too disillusioned by the promise of America, which is only slightly different than the Canadian promise: The most of everything for the least number! Naomi's people have learned well the lessons taught by their neighbors south of the border.
However, lets not be too hard on Naomi, she was just a little girl when Brian Mulroney sold the riches of Canada for a penny a pound to the Americans. Nothing has changed excepting Naomi grew up keeping her childish idealism alive and is now trying to save Americans from Capitalism.
Objections arise from nearly all quarters regards the various bailouts, the degree of executive compensation in particular. And now Naomi weighs in. If she or anyone in a position to know fully understood/understands the total prospect of our present situation, I'm sure she would have employed a lot more adjectives in her essay.
Because the extent of unregulated corruption in the investment banking sector over the past 28 years is now beginning to see the light of day. And as one commentor above says, the dollar can be considered to now be in a bubble and our currency faces the prospect of a dramatic collapse. (Could the world's major governments possibly agree to a freeze on exchange rates? Is that a technical possibility? Even if all of the cats could be corraled?) The whole big enchilada is going to become quite a miniature taco, folks.
Check out a newly published piece on Portfolio.com. It was written by an insider who appears to be the first journo to have gotten his brain cells fully wrapped around what has gone down on Wall Street since Reagan took over the White House. His article is rather long, but it is easy to read. His piece will likey become the thread of a major motion picture. The description of a plate of devilled eggs in the closing lines is near magisterial. Be prepared to crap your pants folks. None of us have any idea of what we're in for. Ignore at your own peril.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/
Thanks very much for the link. In fact, thank all of you for posting informative links to things you see. Its like having an extra thousand eyes.
eventually confidence in not only currency in general, but in our supposed "system of laws" will wane to a degree that bartering might come back in vogue. When the regulators are bought off with no incentive to monitor illegal behaviour, well then i guess it's time to start buying and selling strictly local.
DECENTRALISE THE MARKET, BABY!!! DECENTRALISE!!!
Is it a fact that Islamic nations and businesses do not deal in interest for religious reasons?
Does anyone know the names and numbers about these? Are they in this mess, too?
Gosh, I hope this isn't a struggle for the world between those who have oil, don't charge interest, but have no nukes V. those that borrow to buy oil, have economies that have leveraged their assets 40-to-1, and have nukes...
Greed is the Creed
Debt is the Net
Business is our religion, and our Government has been rotted by it.
You want to fix it? Start by stripping corporations of legal personhood, and requiring them to price in human and ecological costs. Pump in the bailout funds at the bottom of the pyramid and let them rise to the top, healing most of the system.
But the game is not being played to fix anything.
Seems to me that we are witnessing and passively participating in is the playing out of the masters class of corporate looting.
Oh, they'll end up with all the loot allright, but the wheels are coming off the getaway car. Where can they go?
As far as what BHO and the "new" Congress will do, it may not matter.
Will someone (Naomi??) study the IPCC ice core data chart used in Gore/IPCC's presentation to the Nobel Cmte and comment on the defeat and reversal of the previous CO2/Temp spikes, and our personal relationship to the present steep, spike-like rise? It can be found in his book, "An Inconv Truth" and the internet.
I'm about to run out of notes-in-bottles to throw out into the surf...
Cheers
Faithful Muslims do not take interest; those I have known kept their money in non-interest-bearing checking accounts. I believe the original Qur'anic injunction was against usury, not the modest interest which is a cost of lending and borrowing, but it was interpreted to mean any amount of interest. Banks in Saudi Arabia give interest but call it "commission"; this is a "heela"--a ruse--and as far as I've been able to see, that's pretty well the standard operating procedure for Islamic banks anywhere. When they lend money they do it by partnering with the customer, eg. to finance the building of a house.
Most so-called Islamic countries are not run according to Qur'anic principles, so they have international-style banks and perhaps Islamic banks too.
The USA used to have anti-usury laws until Phil Gramm started meddling. I believe the rules were tossed out in one of the versions of Glass-Steagal. That's why credit card interest rates are so ridiculous nowadays.
Allow me to paraphrase the German Pastor Martin Niemöller.
When they came to oust or arrest the radical leaders of our labor unions I did nothing.
When they came to haul suspected commies and "leftists" before the Senate's "Unamerican Activities Committee" I did nothing.
When they came to marginalize progressive politicians I did nothing.
When they came to purchase Senators, Representatives, and Presidents I did nothing.
When they came to destroy my retirement fund it was too late. I had believed all of their hollow promises.
There is today no coherent social group a.k.a. as "class" which can bring about a fundamental revision of governance. The so-called "middle class" is a historical aberration because it will always strive to become "upper class" and fear to sink into the "lower class". When sinking threatens the "middle class" favors repression. Revision can only happen if and when the current system of governance fails to provide food, housing, jobs, and "happiness".
On the day when the so-called "bailout" was signed by President Bush I told my wife and friends that this would end up as the most gigantic financial swindle in the history of mankind, larger than the Dutch "Tulip Swindle" and larger than the British "South Sea Swindle" in which the famous British scientist Newton lost 80,000 pounds. I have no reason to be shocked when it happens. I did nothing. It is already too late to change.
How can the trillions of dollars, euros, and other species be honestly generated that are now thrown at banks which produce exactly nothing? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the answer. By the "working" and "middle" classes. When that fails, the solution will become "print, print, spend, spend".
Third to last paragraph, substitute 'revolution' for revision, and you are on.
Signed, a relativist Marxist who believes in Obama.
Sioux Rose
CROWS NEST: Please assist my thought process (I have no planets in earth signs, and don't really take in materiality/banking/the money scene with ease.) IF the US was already operating at a deficit, and already sent its manufacturing base overseas... apart from more zeroes at the end of sums owed, what difference does this mean? (Presuming the loan operations continue between nations, etc.) It's like we already operated way beyond our budgets, and Bush just made the entire idea of a balanced fiscal equation IMPOSSIBLE... judging by the nature of these derivatives into the TRILLIONS, billions offered to the wrong sorts are not much better than putting fingers into dams. So while it INDEED is a heist, one I would say got its prep work done during the S & L scam of 20 plus years ago, improved upon by the Enron Scam, and this then--along with a war on FIXED cause--being the big enchillada. They had LOTS of practice, and seem to have massaged the public's tolerance for these types of fiscal losses/shenanigans... like who blinked when how many billion, or was it trillion, disappeared into the blackhole of Iraq? Its stink water black water protectors there to make sure THAT faraway heist could also go according to plan. Score 10 points for the dark side!
Once again Ms. Klein shows her understanding while her debate partner says something about how "I had no idea this would happen". Of course I am referring to Mr Greenspan.
iceman:that was a good show on www.democracynow.org when Naomi Klein and Greenspan were on together. It was before he said, "I had no idea.", but good anyway. Especially in light of his recent comment(s).
Let's face it people, a year from now, most of the starry-eyed Obama supporters will be angry and depressed that their 'knight on a shining steed' will probably turn out to be just another politician. Don't get me wrong, I like Mister Obama, and think he was definitely the better of the two major candidates, but the iron law of institutions is that people don't rise to the leadership levels of institutions unless they've internalized the values of that institution. Had Mister Obama actually been a threat to the status quo which has been running the homeland for decades or more, he would never have been a serious contender for president. Real change never comes from the top and never will.
Democrats and republicans alike largely represent corporate interests - sometimes different corporate interests - but corporate interests. The needs of Corporate interest distort both domestic and foreign policy and take precedence over the needs of the citizenry in general. Until there is a fundamental change in our system of governance, something I don't forsee anytime soon, the needs and the interests of the powerful few will outweigh the needs and the interests of the many.
And how, precisely, do we do that if we reject every electoral alternative presented?
Theoretically a 'grass-roots', philosophically 'anarchistic', mass movement to re-populate Congress with actual representatives of the 'people' would be a start, but since I don't believe in miracles or rational action by large numbers of individuals I wouldn't hold my breath.
Maintaining a functional democratic republic requires at least a knowledgable and thoughtful population who have access to factual information, some reason for the majority of these individuals to engage in the hard work of democratic citizenship, and institutions that reliably convey that hard work and the desires of the majority, through actual representatives, into public policy.
As a consequence of decades of relentless manipulation by advertisers, politicians, preachers and other professional hucksters, and an educational system woefully negligent in imparting systematic methods by which to defend ourselves against that manipulation, we as a public often lack the critical skills to tell practical reality from the background clutter. This manipulation is, according to practical 20th century philosophers like Edward Bernays, often called the 'father of the public relations business', a necessary aspect of democracy. To paraphrase his words: We must regiment peoples' minds like armies regiment their bodies. He lays it all out in a small book entitled 'Propaganda'. I highly recommend it.
But to directly answer your question, my guess is we won't change it and for the foreseeable future are doomed to be subjects of a shabby and failing empire (or whatever you wish to call it) rather than citizens of a functional republic. Sometimes things are just impossible to change.
I don't believe that for a moment. Change is always possible. Sometimes its not for the good, but thats a democracy for you, especially a democratic republic. But it usually rights itself. I certainly have a higher opinion of our citizens as evidenced in the last election and some of the important events in the last few years.
Lets hope I'm right and you are wrong in this instance.
Please show a few examples of how "it usually rights itself".
Thank you.
I would say the recent election, the resignation of Nixon, the defeat of Carter, the election of Kennedy, the election of FDR, the election of Teddy roosevelt, Lincoln are the easiest touchstones.
Please explain how the examples you gave represent any ‘change’ in how or in whose interests the government actually operates – which is basically what I was suggesting.
Thomas Dewey suggested that “Government is the shadow of big business on society.” There’s not much point tinkering with the government until the substance of what powers that shadow is first identified and their influence somehow neutralized – if that’s what you want to do. As long as money buys elections, access, and policy that tinkering can’t happen. Remember Mister Obama spent $700 Million to get elected. In my skeptical, perhaps cynical, mind that doesn’t nurture much hope for actual change.
The consequences of Mister Obama’s election remain to be seen but my guess is that things won’t change much - though I intend to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he is sincere in some of what he promised – and less than sincere in other things he promised – like expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ask him to call the Russians and see how it worked out for them.
Nixon. Why was Nixon forced to resign? Watergate. He and his Iago, Kissinger, were responsible for mindlessly killing at least hundreds of thousands of SE Asians – and covering it up. Why would he be forced to resign for covering up a two-bit burglary? Because unlike all the other governmental persecution that went on then, and since, he foolishly targeted the powerful and the respectable. So he had to go. Shades of McCarthy who was allowed to rant on the public stage about ‘commies under the bed' until he attacked another powerful institution - the Army – then he had to go.
The defeat of Carter? Who replaced him – Reagan the stepfather of the crop of political turnips that have just been running things – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.. Reagan violated both domestic and international law repeatedly. What changed there?
Kennedy? Bay of Pigs, assassination attempts on foreign leaders, embargo on Cuba, support of a dictatorship and escalation of an illegal war in Vietnam, neo-liberalism in Latin America – arming dictators and train their armies under the pretense of self-defense when who they were ‘defending’ themselves against were their own people. Complicity in death squads in Columbia, Guatamala, El Salvador. Same thing going on today under the guise of a ‘war on drugs’. What changed there? Except for the names, not much it seems.
But yes, I too hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but I think history supports my pessimistic view.
Those in my opinion were points where excess in one direction was corrected. Actually if Nixon had not resigned he would have lost the next election anyway because of Viet Nam.
Actually it was Johnston that escalated the war and I should have made it Kennedy/Johnson as Johnson was responsible for a real readjustment in our social structure.
"But yes, I too hope you’re right and I’m wrong," Good idea. We'll know about Obama from troop movements in Iraq and Afganistan and if he stands up for the American worker instead of corporate America.
Having been elected to two consecutive terms - 1968 and 1972 - Nixon could not run for president again anyhow.
Yes, Johnson really escalated our participation in the Vietnam war, but he did so largely to honor the legacy of JFK who had already started the escalation - he did, after all keep most of Kennedy's cabinet. But I take your point. Would Kennedy have ended the war as has been suggested by his dewy-eyed apologists? That's for you to decide, but I'd say probably not. He could have ended our participation quite easily while he was president but didn't. Intentions are one thing but only our actions define us.
"Having been elected to two consecutive terms - 1968 and 1972 - Nixon could not run for president again anyhow."
This is how I remain humble! Its so easy for me!
I don't think Kennedy would have either, but I do think he wouldn't have escalated it as Johnson did.
"Intentions are one thing but only our actions define us."
Very, very true.
Tirebiter--love your alias--I couldn't have said it better myself.
.I do not understand the Democrats, especially those as illustrated by the two childish posters above, they know who they are.
For eight years Bush has broken every promise, refused to work with them after getting their agreement on bills and agenda items. Yet they (democrats) still refuse to see Bush for what he is and continue kneel down and bend over for him
(sorry for the graphic image).
Now, as expected by many, Bush is ramming though many favors for his usual cronies, favors that are going to severely handicap the efforts of the next administration to make the needed changes and undo the Bush legacy. The lame duck legislature should rise up and speak out, at least let the public know it isn't going to be business as usual, unless it is......In point of fact President Elect Obama should make some sort of statement rejecting such Bush strategies and assuring the people that these last efforts of Bush will not stand, unless they will....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
...and what assurances has Obama given the people so far? Maybe Obama, with his "superior intelligence" does have to tippy-toe past the neocon fascists, but I don't think this is what is happening. Corporate Zionist Joe Biden surely knows a lot more than he puts on about this scenario. The Democrats have had many opportunities to rally opposition, but have done nothing but acquiesce and enable. I believe they are going for the seemless transition of the New World Order.
ardee, as a Nader supporter who always spoke with a voice of reason, I am glad to see you here still speaking with a voice of reason, not just ranting.
What I hope we could do now is discuss a step by step plan to envigorate and legitimize third party status in America.
Let me say first that as an Obama supporter I am delighted that America was grown up enough to elect their first black president.
As an optimist, I would love to just sit and soak in that pleasurable bubble bath of hope.
As a realist, I know that Obama may want to fly, but all those political harpies will be sure to have their claws in his tailfeathers.
As it becomes more visible to everyday Americans that we need to stop fighting with each other and start fighting against those dead set on robbing us all of our treasures, I believe more people will be ready to actually DO something about it.
So, what do we DO?
I am reminded of the Warren Zevon song "Lawyers, guns and money". We will certainly need a lot of money, but maybe not as much as we think if we are willing to do a lot of legwork. I hope we will have at least some theoretical loaded guns. So where are the lawyers, because I think we are going to need some to tell us exactly how to fight the stranglehold the duopoly has on political parties. (There has to be a better answer than just voting for Nader every four years. Been there, done that and it hasn't worked.)
I know everyone is sick of politics right now and what seemed like an endless election "season". But before we lapse back into complacency let's talk about a plan, then let's DO something.
.Hi Elaine, nice to see (read) you again. I do enjoy dialoguing with reasonable folks, and there are more than a few here.
As to our mutual opinions of our new President_Elect, I certainly share the overwhelming joy that any decent and caring human being must feel at finally being proud of an election result that brings a minority to the highest office in the land. It speaks volumes about progress.
However ( you knew there was going to be one) the progressive agenda is, in my opinion, far too important, far too necesary to allow this euphoria to overwhelm our civic duties. Barack Obama's young administration, based I readily admit on his campaign and his first appointment bodes ill for those of us who see leftist agendas as the correct course for this nation. We need not discuss the last sixteen years of the agenda of the right need we? WJClinton was eight years of moderate republican rule and these last eight, well, 'nuff said....
If you believe, as you stated above, that Obama may be stifled in his leftward leanings, as I certainly do not, then now is the time to speak out, now is the time to write and email, and now is the time to consider joining your local democratic party. Sorry, but that path is not mine, I served my time in such as that and quickly discovered that the national organisation sees you as dutiful little robots, there only to raise money and serve their wishes. Input from below? Hell no!
I chose to register as a Green this year, I think they need the numbers. I voted, as I have for three elections now, for Ralph Nader, as he was the only candidate who fully met my vision for this nation. I do believe that, as the two major political parties are unrepresentative of the people and far to beholden to the corporations, the future of progressive politics lies with third party growth, that is how I will spend my golden years I guess....
I wish ,elaine, I could speak to you that our victory is just around the corner, but I cannot. I wish I could give you a more exciting path than the slow building of third party independence from the corporate monies that enslave our nations political processes, but I cannot. I work, not to achieve in my lifetime, but to get my fourteen grandkids further down the road to a progressive government enacting progressive legislation and taking the social contract seriously.
Hope to read more from you here.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee sez:
"As to our mutual opinions of our new President_Elect, I certainly share the overwhelming joy that any decent and caring human being must feel at finally being proud of an election result that brings a minority to the highest office in the land. It speaks volumes about progress."
This is her post election position.
Below are some of her pre-election quotes:
"I agree that your candidate [Obama] listens, he listens to the Coal Industry, he listens to the Helath Care industry, he listens to Wall Street. He speaks to you and I but he is not any different from the run of the mill politician, phoney as a three dollar bill but with an ability running to demagoguery."
"Every vote cast for a democrat reinforces the control of the conservative DLC over the policies and directions of that party, every single well meaning voter who continues to remain a democrat helps further the corporate control of this nation."
"Voting for democrats, despite the clear evidence of complicity, of the corporate enslavement of that party, of its abysmal incompetence in the face of clear violations of the Constitution by the Executive branch and expecting things to change is simply insane."
"Your partisanship allows you to dismiss the sabre rattling of Obama as electioneering while emphasising that of MccCain as reality, this sort of politics is silly stuff really. I believe them both and thus vote for a candidate who rattles NO sabres, Ralph Nader."
So I question her "overwhelming joy" at an election result she so 'ardently' opposed.
.I am sorry that you embarrass yourself with posts like this. Perhaps you might get a grownup to read my words and interpret them for you. I believe everyone else here gets the distinction.
I stand behind every one of those quotes of mine you cite, thanks for reintroducing them. If you are such a poor fool that you cannot make the distinction between being proud of our nation's election of the first African American to the highest office in the land and being critical of his policies then that is a shame that falls on your parents, the first cousins, and not upon me or my politics.
I do appreciate the way you so easily invalidate your contributions here, thanks ever so much.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Oh, I see. You feel "overwhelming joy" that a "sabre rattling", "run of the mill politician, phoney as a three dollar bill but with an ability running to demagoguery" who "listens to the Coal Industry", "listens to the Helath Care industry" and "listens to Wall Street" was elected, because he's a member of a minority.
Right.
Thanks for clearing that up.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ, Oct 2, 2008:
"You know, we got into this problem, apparently because we did not have effective enforcement of antitrust policies, and we wound up with institutions that were too big to fail ...but when the losses come up, they know that we’re going to bail them out, which we are in the process of doing. So, this is predictable..."
"Already, the financial sector has been accused, and I think correctly, of engaging in non-competitive practices. And you see it in the credit card fees, which are far above competitive—equilibrium levels. That’s why they, you know, have been able to generate such profits from a very simple technology..."
"Now you have this additional concentration, the risk of this non-competitive behavior just increases all the more..."
That's been the main effect so far: a consolidation of power on Wall Street. As events have show, Wall Street can crash the U.S. economy at the drop of a hat, as can China with its massive trade imbalance and huge reserve of U.S. dollars. The U.S. has become a debtor nation under the regime of GW Bush, with the debt being held by a lot of his old cronies - the entire thing needs to be shut down.
Now is not the time to get in bed with the very criminals who brought on the crisis in the first place - now is a time to put a halt to all last-minute activities of the Bush Administration and of the lame-duck Congress. Don't count on Obama to do it - do it yourself.
Where are all the political groups that came together to support Obama's campaign? Now is the time to keep doing so by making sure that the Republicans don't completely sabotage the economy on their way out - these clowns are the kind of spoiled brats who burn the house down if they don't get their way.
You poor little Obamahaters; nothing to sink your hatred into, instead of one hundred plus ugly posts, you lowlifes have gone back into you holes...
Where you belong; what? 30 something posts? Who the eff cares? I will never forget the onslaught of hatred.
Whare is /nannie/ with it's endless posts for nader? an irellevant loser?
Cowards. I endured your hate, now you hide,.
Bring. It On.
i did not wilt when outnumbered, and now you scum can eat yourselves; Obama is moving forward already.
So Sad haters.......hahahah. go to h***. I am Afghani, w/ a long memory.
They're slinking back in. I think they were traumatized by the election results. Some of them are posting under different names.
One of the most 'ardent' Obamanots is claiming to be overwhelmed with joy about Obama's win. I think the results made her delusional. :-)
.What an amazing record for self destruction you have....Is it possible that you really hate yourself this much?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"I am Afghani, w/ a long memory."
Really? You are a unit of the currency of Afghanistan? A "dollar bill" that can actually read and write? This is amazing. Astounding, even. Has anyone told the Afghans that their currency can actully read and write? Wow. Can you speak, too?
-- EKATON --
No. He meant he was a (male) person from Afghanistan. Like an Iraqi is a (male) person from Iraq.
.Hee, you rascal you. Perhap he meant to say that we are all afghans on a higher level?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
With your fiery, spluttering breath and nerves of steel, perhaps you could offer your organizing services to Karzai, who could certainly use some help. Obama doesn't really need you, unless you are willing to be a useful idiot. Obama works for the New World Order, just as do the controlled leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. They care not a whit for the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, or even the people of the U.S. Will Obama be a passive tool or much more gung-ho? The people with whom Obama surrounds himself signal the next step in the entrenchment of BIG BROTHER. Our election cycles are merely a manifestation of the "theatre of the absurd" and the path to world corporate/military totalitarianism. Instead of counting the number of posts by the so-called "Obama haters", start counting the number of times "a New World Order" is being called for by our global "leaders". Just a short while ago, the "New World Order" was being dismissed by the MSM and politicians as a myth or conspiracy theory. Now it's out in the open. As the planned destruction of the economy and wars for global hegemony accelerate, the myth of Obama will be more obvious. At the risk of being trite, Obama truly is just the "lipstick on the pig". As the people are brought to their knees in this planned destruction, will you be prepared to put your energies in the service of Obama's and Emanuel's million-man "National Civilian Security Force". Will they give you a brown shirt or perhaps a green shirt to wear. Will you submit your loyalty, thinking it is some sort of FDR reconstruction for the benefit of the people? Whatever it is in that "long memory" of yours, I think it's blocking a more realistic perception of the reality into which we are being herded.
Are you an Illuminati fan?
Why would I be an Illuminati fan? Are you an Illuminati?? I really haven't had a chance to investigate the Illuminati angle, but I think there are possible elements of truth in it's history, both past and perhaps present. I really haven't gone there because there is so much right in our faces already to deal with. But again, thanks for the reference. There just might be some enlightening material there. If you have something you could share about the Illuminati, it would be appreciated.
Mister Chips: No, I don't believe in the Illuminati. I thought you were in the belief system of those opposing it, who talk about the New World Order. I thought they were related.
Oh, here's another reply. I do have to get back to work, but i will say this. As I said before, I haven't gotten into the Illuminati question very far, but it is a curious subject and I am open to give it some study. People who are concerned about the New World Order come from a variety of belief systems and political persuasions, often conflicting, but not just those who equate the Illuminati with the New World. I don't discount the Illuminati as such, nor do I embrace the notion. I just have not studied it enough to feel comfortable giving any kind of judgement or clear opinion. I do believe, however, that The New World Order need not be wedded to the concept of the Illuminati to have it's own validity. Later,....
What, translucent?
Because Obama "won", all the issues that the 2-year long "campaign" never got around to mentioning (torture, preemptive war, Katrina, Blackwater, insurance for health insurance companies not people, loss of habeus corpus, the phony bailout crisis to steal us blind, etc. etc.) have magically *poof* gone away?? Would that it were true.
Bush is already doing all he can to make the road for Obama and all of us rocky or impassible. He is implementing 90 new measures to weaken regulation before January.
As Obama's "change" mandate is generic and unclear, there is not clear mandate to stop Bush, and there is all that talk of bi-partisanship. What?! With criminals?
What a gracious winner you are.
People who supported a more articulated agenda still "get" the symbolic importance of Obama's win, and are breathing a sigh of relief, albeit one of caution, and to some degree are grateful. The flood of support from the fearful and hopeful gave enough support so a third election in a row could not be easily stolen.
But those folks who gave us all those terrible things (and their enablers in Congress) are not going away. Out of power they still ARE in power in many ways. Obama did not campaign on saving the Constitution, nor in returning equal justice (the agendas of Nader, McKinney and others), so that work still remains to be pursued by vigilant and active informed citizens -- something the campaign should have produced in droves. It got many active, but few informed.
Hatred, is what those of us who care about justice and participatory democracy have been victim of for years -- from many sides. Those who truly hate democracy, Obama, Afghanis, women, workers, gays and more still own or control more of the world including armies (private and otherwise), the financial institutions and more.
Hatred is evident in your own words, in fact. Instead, be grateful for those who strive to put the MEANING into the spin. Even if our candidates are not permitted in the phony "debates" to get a chance to win.
"Losers" are those who now feel satisfied, and go home believing that all's right now with the world since Obama will fix it all.
The enemies still lurk. Sarah Palin did not come from nowhere and is ready yet to cheer on the brownshirts. The agenda she follows is hardly her own. They are working and planning right now even as Obama's team plans the transition. Look what they did to Clinton.
Do you not worry at all about criminals who did their all to destroy the nation, breaking all measures of law and human decency, will likely leave office and be free, even "respected" elder statesmen with their fingers still on power? We pay usury rates on credit card debt, but the card copanies get billion from our taxes -- for free?? We give billions, unquestioned to unnamed recipients, yet lose our homes over medical bills?
The last people you should wish to go away are exactly those striving against all odds to face and deal with the real pressing issues of society, humanity, and the planet, that corporate politics only worsens and will not solve.
No doubt, Obama's presence on the world scene has indeed the potential to change some parameters, both symbolic and real, but if the People are left out of the process, through ignorance or not being called upon, or being repressed for acting on our own, little can be done to move in new directions or to reverse the dismantling of our nation's laws and Constitution which went unchallenged for many years.
.Never mind the words of "transparent". He is a worthless poster who smokes a bit to much of the wacky tobaccy and thinks childish rant to be real political commentary.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Perhaps it would be better to put this behind us. We all won because McCain lost.
If we are trying to accomplish the same end result, does it really matter who or how? Isn't it the result, as long as its done honorably that counts?
Thomas,
There are some who might argue that whether the Dem or the Rep won, we all lost. Time will tell.
Aquifer
I'd take that challange. We are undoudtedly better off for the moment with what we got.
The "moment". Oops, sorry, moment's up.
It's baaaaccckk!
What are you talking about?! Put it all behind you if you wish, but it's still going to bite you in the ass. What have we all won?? McCain means nothing--Obama means nothing. They are both poster boys for the real power structure. I have yet to see anything approaching "honor"--just empty rhetoric and outright deceit from the tag-teaming Dems and Reps.
So your recommendation is to quit?
Did I say anything about quitting? Let me clarify. I would be careful about putting things behind me. I get the impression that Obama and the Democratic leadership would like for us to put this all behind us, and be lulled into the next assualt by the corporate/military monstrosity. NO MORE FAITH that the Democratic globalist machine, including Obama, have any intention of reversing the direction of the last twenty years (actually is goes much further back). This is going to be a long, painful road, and I sense that there are too many who think the tide has turned with the election of the forked-tongue One. He will lead only lemmings.
"This is going to be a long, painful road, and I sense that there are too many who think the tide has turned with the election of the forked-tongue One. He will lead only lemmings."
Nothing new here. I think most Americans view the election of President-elect Obama as a beginning and certainly not a done deal.
Yes the tide has turned but as you clearly stated "it will be a long painful road" to the change most Americans so desire. Most Americans are very aware of this and do not expect the new President to wave a magic wand and make everything perfect. There is no need to insult the millions of citizens who voted for Senator Obama.(or for that matter President-elect Obama himself) Your fellow citizens are much smarter than you give them credit for.
We have no idea how this new Presidency is going to turn out in the long run. But I guess pessimistic people will always speculate future disaster while optimistic people will always promote hope.
Try dancing with the shoes you have on and not the ones you would like to be wearing. They may work just fine.
I'm beginning to think more than the tide has turned. I'm not sure the prameters of the whole enchalida haven't changed.
What makes you think so? In any case, even if that is so, perhaps the problem is we need to make something other than an enchilada.
I can't be sure yet. But it doesn't look good I think.
My shoes are quite comfortable for dancing, but they will not be dancing for Obama and the New World Order.
Good for you pal. Be a part of the problem and not part of the solution. The hell with what the nation thinks or for that matter what the rest of the world thinks. Just sit on the sidelines and criticize. Everybody is stupid but you.
Of course I don't consider everyone else "stupid". It's the thinking of people like ctrl-z, translucent, and yourself to which I take most exception. I really do hope that I'm wrong, but to date I have seen nothing to create that kind of self-doubt.
Have you considered that maybe you are part of the problem, Mr. Democratic Party-guy? Baaa!! Have some more of the Globalist Kool-Aid. Look at the latest--Obama's representatives to the financial summit--Republican Rep. corporatist Jim Leach and Miz Wonderful, Madeleine. How far will this corporatist conga line stretch? Hope does spring eternal, doesn't it? I told you that I will not dance at your party, not even attend your party. I DO NOT LIKE YOUR PARTY. I've seen this moronic farce taking shape for too long now to take a conciliatory or diplomatic position.
I believe Dante is Canadian so I don't think he is a member of the Democratic party by any means.
I have always found his posts to be very reasonable. Perhaps you guys are misunderstanding each other?
Hey Thomas,
Thanks for the kind words. It is not so much that I do not understand Mr.Chips. There is just too much negativity being expressed here on cd. Any who dare to express hope are immediatly stoned by the multitude. Mr.Chips unfortunately was the person that I expressed my frustration to. I actually agree with most of his positions but I see change as an evolutionary process that requires many practical steps along the way. It took us all awhile to get to were we are and it will take awhile for us to get to where we would like to be. One step at a time.
Thomas you knew war and yet still confidently express optimism for a peaceful future. You have been lied to yet you still believe that there is truth in the idea that a better world is possible. If you can do it, why not others?
Semper Fidelis
I guess this calls into question, "If it walks like a duck..." bromide. Or does it? Yes, there is always the possibly of misunderstanding, but it appears to me that Dante takes the position of so many Democratic Party apologists. I would like for Dante and others to give one solid reason to give Obama some slack--and I don't mean Obama's rhetoric. Democratic powers have been usurped from the people, including the electoral process. That is why I question that we have "won" anything and are not experiencing just another step in erosion. I am no more inclined to believe in the mysterious masked man as I am to believe in Santa Claus. Just what is it in Obama's record that justifies even a qualified trust in Obama? He already shows too big a propensity for deceit and support for the corporate globalist agenda. Maybe I am just unable to fathom Obama's brilliant, stealthy strategy. Actually, there may be a somewhat brilliant, stealthy strategy going on here, but I don't think it's where I want to go. As others have expressed, WHY should the criticism be silenced until Obama has the opportunity to be installed?
I guess this calls into question, "If it walks like a duck..." bromide. Or does it? Yes, there is always the possibly of misunderstanding, but it appears to me that Dante takes the position of so many Democratic Party apologists. I would like for Dante and others to give one solid reason to give Obama some slack--and I don't mean Obama's rhetoric. Democratic powers have been usurped from the people, including the electoral process. That is why I question that we have "won" anything and are not experiencing just another step in erosion. I am no more inclined to believe in the mysterious masked man as I am to believe in Santa Claus. Just what is it in Obama's record that justifies even a qualified trust in Obama? He already shows too big a propensity for deceit and support for the corporate globalist agenda. Maybe I am just unable to fathom Obama's brilliant, stealthy strategy. Actually, there may be a somewhat brilliant, stealthy strategy going on here, but I don't think it's where I want to go. As others have expressed, WHY should the criticism be silenced until Obama has the opportunity to be installed?
Yes Mr.Chips I am a Canadian but my wife and two children are, like you, American citizens. Yes, they voted for President-elect Obama.
Do we as a family have any delusions as to the change President-elect Obama will effect during his term as President? Absolutely not. For us, in many ways, it has little to with the President-elect himself and everything to do with his message and what he has come to symbolize. Hope.
In this election the people of the United States expressed hope and confidence for a brighter future.(electing Senator McCain certainly would not have produced this) Your nation's expression of hope has spread around the word making us all feel more hopeful and confident that a brighter future is possible.
When people have hope things do change. I am not here speaking of a passive hope but rather an active one. Everything begins with hope. Change will never happen without it. Today the people of the world have more confidence in you the people of the United States than ever before. Why? Hope? Yes. Symbolic? Yes. There is nothing more powerful than a positive symbol and the symbol of hope is the most powerful of all. Without hope we die. Literally.
Mr.Chips I agree with many of the positions you take with regard to the corrupt systems we find ourselves living under. I agree that these systems must be reformed in order to free ourselves from the negative forces that really govern our nations. (The men behind the curtain) But we will never accomplish this in an environment of self-imposed negativity.
Mr.Chips when I ask that people give this President-elect a chance what I am actually saying is to give his message of hope a chance. In the politics of life we all have voting records. There is much in my life I am not proud of. What most Americans, and I dare say most citizens of the international community desire at this time is stability and most agree that President-elect Obama can achieve at least that much. Before you can do anything for a sick patient you must first of all stabilize that patient.
It is from this stability that our hope for a better future can begin the long journey to the reformed and enlightened societies we all so desire. This is, in my opinion, the only way. One step at a time.
Thank you for responding to my comments.
As aways I wish the country of my wife and children all the very best.
Your Country Mr.Chips.
The United States of America
I share your assessment
I keep waiting for Mr. "New World Order" to show his full card...the rest of the rant...It sometimes ends with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (written by the Russian fiction makers of trouble in the gov't that is still being passed around).
Please don't hesitate, NYC., if you're going the route of the "anti-semitic' red herring. I'm talking about the "New World Order" promised us by George H.W. Bush right after the first gulf war. It's the same "New World Order" being called for at this moment by Gordon Brown. It has to do with the orchestrated destruction of the U.S. and world economies by the international bankers to consolidate assets and power into a world governing elite--no more sovereign nations, just "market states" run by corporate fascists. Some might swallow the notion of a world where there is no more war and various peoples will go about solving problems in a sublime atmosphere of cooperation. According to the neoliberal globalist, Philip Bobbitt, in his book "Terror and Consent", the War On Terror will continue and only the market states (i.e. the North American Union, consisting of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, the EU, and other market states carved out of South America, Asia, Africa, etc.)--only the market states will be able to combat "terrorism". Power will be consolidated in a world government under the auspices of the U.N., or some such entity, and only the U.N. will be able to declare preemptive war (the Security Council would NOT have a vote in this). So who would be making these decisions, some star-chambered corporate board?? And who would a preemptive war be directed at? Well, I think against any people who decided they weren't happy with BIG BROTHER'S "freedoms". This, anyway, is a snippet of what I derived from Philip Bobbitt.
...getting back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I've heard of the Protocols , but am not really familiar with them. Thanks for the reference. I plan to look into it. However, rather than waiting for me to "show my full card", I suggest you do your own research on the New World Order, starting with other sites such as Global Research, Online Journal, Infowars, What Really Happened, and others as I find and post them for you. Surely you have noticed the progression of fascism under George W. Bush. Look at the installation of BIG BROTHER in Britain. There's a movement going on that surpasses the distracting charade of the the left-right paradigm engaging most of the U.S. population. So don't wait--start digging. The New World Order is not a conspiracy theory or urban myth.
Mr Chips: "world economies....international bankers".."into ...governing elite" are the buzz words. Not new. Very old, preBush, with new twist. Like the one about using the goldsmiths of England in the long ago centuries morphed into "international bankers". The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are fiction. I repeat, fiction. (You know that. I posted it for anyone who might not know that.)
Very clever, tickle, tickle..., but what is your point about the "Protocols"? (I'll still look it up anyway.) For sure, "New World Order" dates well before Poppy Bush, but why did he say that we would be ushered into a "New World Order"? Why are Gordon Brown and others talking about a "New World Order"? Are these words just fashionable retreads to add a little adornment to political speeches, or do these buzz words have meaning? I have the impression that you give them no credence. Then why are they buzz words at all? How about "hope" and "change". Are they not "buzz words"? I notice that they have been increasingly incorporated into so many commercials. I have a strong feeling that you are coyly waiting for me to reveal my card, enabling you to seize the opportunity to label me a "conspiracy theorist". I'll be debunked and you can chuckle your way back to the smart set. Well, I'll answer all your questions to the best of my ability as soon as I can get back to you. I need to stop typing for now and take care of some pressing work.
Gotcha. I believe that the parameters of the whole thing have changed. I'm not sure they can continue that direction. somethiong Ardee, GWnorth and NYCartist said started a different train of thought.
Globalism was always a business front.
...a heavily-armed business front.
A heavily armed business front with back-up!
I probably should have said business fraud on second thought. Thats what it amounts to.
Chupacabra writes:
"As time goes on, it becomes more apparent that "Obamacain" might have been the most accurate description."
Just in case it WASN'T a foregone conclusion that the Democratic nominee, ANY Democratic nominee with any old retread VP candidate, would "win" the voting event, the economic collapse suspiciously manifested just in time to be sure there was really NO contest.
Now, the convenient "collapse" is the excuse for whatever ELSE the black-but-comely corporate figurehead may do -- including leaving the Senate just in time NOT to vote on Lieberman or the "bailout".
If you voted for Nader, be glad. If you voted for Obama, get mad.//
Voted for Obama, America's first black Presiden-elect, and I'm very glad.
It comes as no surprise that third party supporteres aren't happy about the election results. Instead of just gnashing your teeth, typing and complaining, why don't you start putting in some time building up your party & candidates?
If enough of you do it you might start seeing some results that are more to your liking next time around.
ctrl-z, you say:
"why don't you start putting in some time building up your party & candidates?"
No. YOU start supporting and building a party that does not use and abuse you while enabling and legitimizing lying, torturing, murdering thugs who are the domestic enemies of democracy. They are out to stop People from participating in any decisions, and Dems...oh it's so horrible...AID them. Over and over. And then they tell US to be quiet!
The Dems who are SO afraid to irritate our Rulers, have no qualms of showing their muscle by taking your donations and instead of going after the Neo-Con Juggler, attacking third parties to keep them off the ballot and out of the news and debates! R's & D's are two teams competing for the same corporate dollars. There is a real cause-and-effect game going on here. No one speaking or revealing the truth is allowed to play. Exposing the game is not permitted.
So stop talking about "those others" already acting IN the third parties to do even more heavy lifting against tough odds. It is YOU who sustain this bloated pig of a Democratic Party who takes your votes, your money, then takes you for a ride...it is YOU who should make the MOVE (and make that difference).
When YOU and mllions of others start to put your energy in a party like the Greens whose position sounds like your own hearts and minds, REAL change will come. Truth will be heard. Candidates you can trust will bring you politics you can trust, and water you can trust.
Put your money where your heart is, and stop funding those who only use you then disappoint you, or turn you in!
YOU.
BUILD the world we want with like-minded souls at your side, and stop begging those who don't share your vision (the Dem leadership) to change, and don't expect them do the work for you. It will never happen.
Instead of just gnashing your teeth, typing and complaining, why don't you start putting in some time building up your party & candidates?
A lot of you armchair radicals are content to sit around and rant-via-blog about the condition of the world and how bad everything is. You don't volunteer, you don't protest, you may, occasionally, email someone in government to rant about something.
So I'm not surprised to get a response like yours when I suggest you actually do something instead of just complaining.
Now, if you - like I - actually went out and spent some time working for your candidate/party, or if you've been active in protesting against the war - then you're not an armchair radical. You just don't like the Dems. Nothing wrong with that. There's a lot not to like about them. But they aren't the party of Bush and they just won the election. And I'm glad I was able to help.
So go ahead and blame me, and others like me, for the failure of third parties to make any ground in this election.
But take a look in the mirror while you're doing it.
How about 15 years of working at it? Founding 2 anti-war groups, an impeachment organization, a civic group, a local party, running candidates, coordinating campaigns, calling into dozens of radio shows, doing interviews, voter training, fighting to get a few column-inches of space in the newspaper...I know plenty of others who work hard at this as well. What do you know to make such presumptuous comments?
As I said, if you're doing things then you're not an armchair radical. That doesn't change the fact that your response to a suggestion for people to do something instead of just complain was a rant against people supporting the democratic party.
To me that sounded like the response of an armchair radical. That's where my presumption came from. There are a lot of anti-Obama third party supporters who post here but never do anything else. In one long thread about people attending anti-war rallies only two or three people responded to a query as to who had attended any rallies/marches.
Those who didn't respond, but constantly complain, were the people for whom my comments were intended. Sorry if my aim was off.
.Anyone who doesnt march to your particular drummer is automatically open to insult. That you were just given a perfect illustration of how dumb your posts , how irrelevent and unrelated to reality they are once again escapes you.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Anyone who doesnt march to your particular drummer is automatically open to insult."
Do you ever read what you write?
.Yup, I do, and I read your tripe, and then post exactly whatt you deserve in response. Ever notice that only you and a couple of fellow twerps are the only recipients of my bile?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee sez:
"Ever notice that only you and a couple of fellow twerps are the only recipients of my bile?"
What I notice is you don't like getting called on your vitriolic attacks, your claim of happiness about Obama's victory or your call to your representatives to tell them you weren't voting for them because of the bailout bill - after you'd sworn you weren't going to vote for another democrat long before any vote on the bailout bill.
You just don't like getting caught at it.
.Politics is nuanced, you have all the nuance of a moss covered rock. That is the fault of your parents and inferior genes, please try not to take your own serious shortcomings out on the world.
My positive reaction to the election of Obama, as most with an actual brain understand, has to do with the election of the first African American to the highest office. My criticisms have to do with his stated positions, his first appointments and his pandering to the money that got him elected.
Of course having to explain this elementary stuff to an idiot like you is tedious. Perhaps you knew where I was going all along but it gave you no opportunity to , once again, mentally masturbate on this forum.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee sez:
".Politics is nuanced, you have all the nuance of a moss covered rock."
No argument there.
ardee also sez:
"My positive reaction to the election of Obama, as most with an actual brain understand, has to do with the election of the first African American to the highest office. My criticisms have to do with his stated positions, his first appointments and his pandering to the money that got him elected."
I just don't believe you were 'supremely overjoyed' at the election of a man you rabidly opposed. You claim to be happy he was elected because of his race. Didn't you know his race before the election? Did any of your posts say, "Although I'd love to see an African American elected...." If so, I missed it. All I saw from you was a series of attacks against Obama.
Let me put it this way, if McCain/Palin had won I would have been happy to finally see a woman VP, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the disgust I'd have felt that she and McCain were in office. If she were elected President, my horror would be been even greater.
When I was younger I used to vote for women running against men regardless of their party affiliation. Then I finally realized, if you elect a woman republican she's still voting republican. The gender isn't what's important, it's the positions the candidate will take.
So your claim of exultation at a minority in office, after all your attacks, seemed wayyyyyyyyy overstated to me.
.I cannot believe you are not posting from an institution of some sort.
You answer yourself and dont even realise it, what a maroon:
"Let me put it this way, if McCain/Palin had won I would have been happy to finally see a woman VP, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the disgust I'd have felt that she and McCain were in office. If she were elected President, my horror would be been even greater."
Exactly the point I have been making, you jackass....happy to see progress of one sort and unhappy to see regression on the other. Get a clue or remain at the children's table.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I said:
"Let me put it this way, if McCain/Palin had won I would have been happy to finally see a woman VP, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the disgust I'd have felt that she and McCain were in office. If she were elected President, my horror would be been even greater."
ardee said:
"Exactly the point I have been making, you jackass....happy to see progress of one sort and unhappy to see regression on the other."
What ardee said before to another poster:
"As to our mutual opinions of our new President_Elect, I certainly share the overwhelming joy that any decent and caring human being must feel at finally being proud of an election result that brings a minority to the highest office in the land. It speaks volumes about progress."
"..overwhelming joy" doesn't sound like a "drop in the bucket" to me. From ardee, someone who spent months attacking Obama, it sounds blatently untrue. Charitably, it is, at the least, massively overstated.
You know ardee, I'm beginning to think you don't like me.
.Your type disgusts me frankly. You have absolutely no interest in dialogue or political progress. You post as a child, jumping up and down screaming,"look at me, look at me", all the while having absolutely nothing to say. I spent months attacking a candidate's platform and statements, now I attack his nominations for staffing. You, on the other hand, haven't a clue as to what you do, which is to interrupt the adults conversations with trivialities and irrelevancy.
Just the way you refuse to acknowledge that life is complex and that one may hold seemingly opposing views because of that complexity shows that you are here to "WIN" AN ARGUMENT THAT ONLY YOU ARE ENGAGED IN....
"Do I contradict myself, well then I do, I am large and contain multitudes." Emerson
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin