NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Obama tells it like it is while keeping it positive hopeful and serious. I feel like he honestly intends to do what he says. Every speech I've ever seen the man give has been competant and he actually talks in depth about issues and solutions and actions. no filler no bs'ing
people say he has no foreign policy experience. I happ[en to think thats a plus. amazingly He has said that he will actually speak to leaders of "hostile" nations rather than isolate them economically or ratchet up false fears and false perceptions of other peoples and nations.
It's never about him it's about issues. He talks about working class and middle class working values. because the reality is that the poor are not looking for handouts they are looking for work. so lets stop talking about them in a manner that belittles them by portraying them as helpless lets talk about people in terms of what they are ready to bring to the table.
lastly, the fact that my father rest his soul was a republican who voted republican even though he hates bush just because he hate dems even more, actually said he would vote Obama. that's how real deal Obama is. he can convert the opposition.
the sign in the back reminded me of that Fleetwood mac song, "Don't stop thinking about tommorrow".
that speech didn't move me at all. Edwards speech after Iowa did.
I can't even consider either until the race is over. As for now my support is for Kuchinich or Gravel, and will be until either is possibly defeated. After that we will see if a candidate that matches my politics stand up to run, which will probably be McKinney(G).
What is this thing they call, "politics"? What means it? Is it like cyper? Does it make my bike run better? Where's the party at? Why are you all staring at me like that? I like bikes.
Even though BO said that he will talks with other nations, he did support the idea of bombing Syria, and does support all option with Iran which includes bombing them also.
Obama have had enough support to run his campaign with small donations from individuals, but went to hedge funds and health insurance industries for money. Might be because he feels it is safer to
line up with those that could possibly destroy his chances to become president with the money they can spend against him. I do think, if he was bold enough to snub them and support Universal health care, I along with grove of others would come up for him.
BO is also a big supporter of using more coal power, more mercury in the fish. Yummy!
I'll be digging them up and putting them up one by one, but here is a few on BO support for coal to liquid fuel plants with US govt loan guaretees.
Why not guarantees for non-polluting energy? Possibly that coal is so plentiful, possibly the same thing with the insurance companies, they are powerful i.e. have lots of money.
http://www.jetsongreen.com/2007/05/alternative_ene.html
this one has four link within it.
this op ed talks about possilbities why he is doing what he is doing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html
As previously mentioned, i'm a fan of O8ama, but i'm afraid to join the campaign. The #1 reason is, i have a hard time defending an opposing person's challenge. I'm not that up on every little thing he does or say and if someone does challenge me, i'm not knowledgeable enough to know that what the other person said is actually true or not.
I even have a hard time believing what i read in papers or the media because it is all slanted. Last election there actually was an unbiased website that someone made where they posted comments made by the 2 candidates and then posted the reality of their statements next to them. It was refreshing to read and gave the reader the "truth" instead of an someone's interpretation.
I need that again.
Lastly, i keep hearing the same question over and over again about 08ama and that is: what does he stand for... specifically. Not just 'change' but where does he sit exactly on certain subjects. It still seems a little fuzzy.
But he certainly presents himself as a leader, doesn't he. And what he doesn't know about foreign policy, he will get when he surrounds himself with his team of experienced playas.
I dont mind that he supports coal power (or oil and gas) in the interim because its impossible just to flip a switch and change your means of energy supply for a country this big even in a matter of 1 presidential term. I am a huge supporter of weening ourselves off of fossil fuels in a way that wont crush our economy and send us into a huge recession or depression. Should his message include a way that makes this country greener within a practical plan, I may actually vote.
Personally I like his demeanor and character and that has a lot to do with dealing with people in general, whether domestic or foreign. He speaks to me in revolutionary-like terms which I (and a lot of other people in this country) believe has needed for some time now.
I will wait to see how smart the people he will surround himself with are once he gains more momentum before I decide to stand in his corner. We have a long ways to go to listen about the other important issues that govern the people of this great country.
"And what he doesn't know about foreign policy, he will get when he surrounds himself with his team of experienced playas."
thats what I'm afraid of... that the "experienced playas" will do the usual.... trash talk and stir up fears... or advise on how to deal with "hostile" nations....
I disagree RB. If it were Hilary, McCain, or the others, i WOULD agree with you but my gut feeling is that Obama has a stronger backbone and knows that his rep is on the line. Now, i'm not that Pollyanna-ish to believe that some compromises won't have to be made and some of his initial proposals will somehow be watered down or changed but i think he knows this will be a brave new world and he will need to put the right team together.
"I disagree RB. If it were Hilary, McCain, or the others, i WOULD agree with you but my gut feeling is that Obama has a stronger backbone and knows that his rep is on the line."
oh man I think so too 100% I wasnt saying Obama would cave, I tend to think he will surround himself with a much better group of advisors. the people who advise presidents on foreign policy are selfish self serving greed mongers. yeah I said greed mongers. they rep money interests to the full and that why we have a complete moron for president.... he just follows what his advisors say. I mean I cant possibly diss our president enough. he's a complete ingrate.
"democrats are the new republicans; republicans are still the old republicans. they are all republicans.. "
Don't we live in a Republic???
If you want to learn more about American Foreign Policy and moreover what it should be, .........oh presidential hopefulls, (left and right), your history and geography levels need to be way more advanced. Oh and remember history is subjective, not objective.......!
BTW until the system of election is changed here allowing qualified people and not just people with access to large sums of money to run for office, nothing but nothing will ever change.
I say we have a system where there is a pot of money maybe taken from our taxes - (I'd rather do that than send it to Iraq or anywhere else for that matter) - and candidates use that to get their voices heard. Take big business out of the equation and you just might have a gov't for the peole by the people.
" until the system of election is changed here allowing qualified people and not just people with access to large sums of money to run for office, nothing but nothing will ever change."
here here!
"I say we have a system where there is a pot of money maybe taken from our taxes - (I'd rather do that than send it to Iraq or anywhere else for that matter)"
rather than take it out of the taxes, I think a better idea would be that, as a requirement for cable, tv and radio broadcasters use of the public ariwaves and communications they MUSt dedicate equal blocks of primetime coverage to each candidate. and in fact restrict all political advertising entirely. the time blocks would be paid for by political groups but they would still only be able to pay for an equal amount of time as the least funded candidate.
ALSO, every citizen should be required to vote which would include a federal holiday on election day. If people didnt want to vote they would still be required to submit their ballot with a box checked next to "I decline to vote"
- and candidates use that to get their voices heard. Take big business out of the equation and you just might have a gov't for the peole by the people.
Re; above thread- I think that's how it's done in the UK, but not sure...
When I said "taken out of taxes" I said "maybe" but your mention of airway usage makes complete sense.
I'd also like to see a panel on our tax returns with boxes where we chose where our taxes are spent. Now wouldn't that make the country a different place!!??
"I'd also like to see a panel on our tax returns with boxes where we chose where our taxes are spent. "
it depends on the amount of propaganda feeding the public at large, influencing them on how to spend their money.
as it is the propaganda is controlled by money interests. the biggest advertisers spread the loudest message and thus sell their idea to the largest group of chimps.
but I suppose the main difference between the two foreign policy rookies is that George Bush Jr. is a complete ingrate who can barely put words together whereas Obama has demonstrated the ability to speak clearly and to think critically.
I'd like to see a candidate speak about repealing the military commissions act, patriot act, no child left behind, restoring habeas corpus, transferring power from the executive branch back to congress and the judicial branch, and preventing hr1955 from passing. would also like to see the candidates that already hold office do their jobs, hold the bush admin accountable and establish nuremberg-style war crimes trials.
of course none of this will ever happen because the mainstream democrat candidates share the same basic ideology as their republican counterparts. they will just lie their way into office and ignore their constituents until it's time to be elected again ..as we have seen over the past 6 years.
Ron Paul? So we can lose all the progressive policies of the last 100 years? No thanks. Vote for Ron Paul and vote for exploitation of the worker and the environment, vote for no protection of the different and the less fortunate, vote for no corporate oversight, vote for the freedom to fuck the little people over!
"he one thing I like about Ron Paul is that he talks about dismantling the federal reserve...."
Yes, there are one or two things I like about him. And he does have a lot of integrity, if he was elected I have confidence that he would follow through on his platform. Not that that would necessarily be a good thing as per my previous post.
"George W didn't have any foreign policy experience either. "
you got me on that one! ..."
NOT TRUE!! you have to look behind the 'front man' There was plenty of foreign policy knowledge....in fact...there always is because it's about a 'team'. The problem, is what is done with that knowledge....
"he problem, is what is done with that knowledge...."
the problem is that specifically foreign policy "knowledge" is not being transferred by those surrounding the president. the "advisors" are actually foreign policy lobbiests who advise on behalf of special interests which is why these powers that be prefer a complete dolt like Bush rather than someone who can think critically about the BS these "advisors" are feeding them.
Ron Paul is conservative/libertarian. It's hard to identify him as republican because over that last 20 years or so that label has lost all meaning as a result of subversion by external entities. Looking at the big picture though; He does seem to be the best candidate for this country at this time.. Sure, there would be sacrifices in the eyes of a liberal leaning progressive but if you take a closer look at the existing corporate/banker influenced ideologies of both parties those progressive ideas don't stand much of a chance anyway.
and this is why:
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=6892
it all makes perfect sense.... get a complete moronic ingrate into office so that they just follow what their assigned "advisors" tell them to do... now I understand how in the hell we have a chimp in office.
Roadblock wrote:
"khaos is pretty much spot on...."
But Roadblock originally wrote:
"If Obama wins the democratic party nomination I am going to volunteer for his campaign."
These opinions are completely contradictory. If you agree with Khaos and his analysis of the fascist US state, and the game played by the Republicrats, then you can't be a supporter of Obama.
"Republicrats, then you can't be a supporter of Obama. "
sure I can, I'm looking at the big picture. the republicrats overwhelming power system can only be erroded. it cant just suddenly be brought down with the flip of a switch. unless of course you want a real revolution.... which is impossible in current conditions... vast majority of people in this country are living too comfortably to be inspired to outright take up arms and destroy the people who own our corrupt government. so the only practical choice is to support the people you think can help erode the system to a healthy state.
unfortunately, complacency is a huge obstacle; the politicians know this and use it to their advantage. obama is NOT an anti-war candidate; like hillary clinton, he represents the corporate and imperial wing of the democratic party. the only erosion would be on our last shreds of autonomy.
what would be more annoying is if hr1955 is passed and social rides are considered "domestic terrorism" by local authorities. the vagueness of the bill would allow it.
Hilary tearing Obama a new one and Edwards coming to the rescue during the NH debates was just too funny. I will definitely be voting Obama in the primaries and hopefully the election.
We get to fuck little people over and over? Ron Paul gets my vote!!!
Seriously,
I never have voted and continue to reserve my right because I believe that it doesnt really fucking matter who we put into office. The world is probably run by a handful of people that tell our peon world leaders what to do anyway. Not until there is a REAL revolution from the ground up in this country again will I put the energy or my life into backing a cause.
And plz dont tell me I could be part of a revolution with my single vote cause thats complete BS and I don't believe it. I just try to watch as much C-span as I can to see what moves our govt does on a daily basis and maneuver my life accordingly as long as the complacency of the American people continue to elect these dolts into office.
I await the day that something inspiring and forward moving with actual substance finally comes into play in these elections and not just smoke and mirrors shit talk that keeps me myself and I in a static state of mind. I do care, dont get me wrong, Im just tired of all the BS these politicians feed us - its almost comical that they really take the majority of Americans for idiots. Like take fuck face Clinton for instance. She keeps says "We need someone who will be ready on day one!" As if that doesn't apply to anyone who is elected. What kind of physcobabble is she being fed for her to actually believe that that will actually resonate with people. Its the small shit like that that makes me want to absolutely puke all over myself and bathe in it.
"Like take fuck face Clinton for instance. She keeps says "We need someone who will be ready on day one!" As if that doesn't apply to anyone who is elected. What kind of physcobabble is she being fed for her to actually believe that that will actually resonate with people. Its the small shit like that that makes me want to absolutely puke all over myself and bathe in it."
Nice analysis. 150 years ago I predicted that the masses would be swayed by silly little insubstantial sound bites leading to the Tyranny of the Majority.
being backed by corporations is not necessarily an example of 2 faced behaviour. post links though... I want to be informed
i don't claim corporate-backing implies two-facedness (yay! new word!) which is why i used both terms.
and i must confess, i am totally cynical when it comes to national politics. all i really know is that obama voted for military/iraq/afghanistan funding and he voted to renew the patriot act (which does not in itself justify the two-faced accusation) and that he is fucking HUGE so he MUST have some kind of corporate backing (which is not necessarily true, and not factually verifiable after five minutes with the googler). sorry. foot in mouth.
but i must say this about obama. and this is opinion here, which i can verify as coming straight out of my ass. the guy emits mad positivity, and seeing as the main job of the president is to be the face of the federal government, i like the idea of him up there being all "we can do it!", helping white people from the midwest get used to the fact that dark skinned people exist. having him on tv being all hopeful would be great for the country. because, part of the reason the usa is so f*cked up is because its citizens have the mentality of scared little children. (thanks, dick)
"I await the day that something inspiring and forward moving with actual substance finally comes into play in these elections and not just smoke and mirrors shit talk that keeps me myself and I in a static state of mind."
That's what i think (and hope) as i believe most of the O8ama supporters hope - that he is the real deal and willing to stand up and attempt to make a change. People are sick and tired of the clinton/bush machines that have been running the country for so many years. Their was a news report this morning that said that Obama was way ahead right now in NH and that a lot of the interest and support in him is coming from young people 18-25. This age group has been previously been discounted as apathetic non-voters. But it seems that Obama is connecting with people of all ages and young and old are just fed up. We'll see. It could still turn into a McCain Presidency when things settle although i find that a bit hard to see.
I wouldn't be discourage by people pointing out facts about and person, and then you being challenged to back those up. This will cause you to have to look deeper into why you are supporting a certain candidate and check deeply into what they are about. It will increase your political knowledge on the person and issues. I strongly suggest you go there.
I had this gut feeling about Enishower being one of the best Presidents of the 20th Century, why, because he passed some of the most important progressive legislation of our day (his speech warning of the Military Industrial Congression complex helped). When talking to old timers, I found out that he wasn't progressive at all, so I looked closer and saw that he wasn't a bit progressive, but the mood in country demanded that the legislation be passed, and it was, and he was forced to sign it
This is tough for me right now to back up what I said.
I found a drove of articles in which it quotes obama saying that no military option is off the table for Iran. I can't find where he actually says it. One lead was that it was at the first Dem Pres debates. I can't find it there. I will keep looking and probably shot out some emails to those who wrote those articles
With the bombing of Syria, my research is pointing to talk he gave to pro Israeli groups in the US, when he was in his exploratory stage of running for president.
Now this one, I'm affaird I'm going to have to eat my words, on this one. The amount of money one needs to run for president is subjective and if one is running, I don't think any candidate would say they have raised enough. BO was able to raise 6.9million on line in small donations in short time, which was more then most of the candidates was able to do, which showed some serious grass roots buzz. If you really want to make some serious change,without being beholden to money interest, I think, as well as many other think he could have pulled it off, and had more pulll with everyday voters. Obama has not taken any PAC or lobbyist money, which is a plus.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/07/17/obama_raises_more_money_in_vermont_than_all_other_candidates/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040400989_pf.html
sixth paragraph down
I just found the link that will strengthen my argument
Click on each candidate and compare each of the candiates donations on the right, size of donation. See how well BO has done on $200 or less donations vs. higher donation vs. how other candidates have done on $200 or less donations. So Far BO has raised 20million in donation$200 or less.
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?†And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.†Another top Obama person—
AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?†And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.
ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.
When I was young and niave I campaigned for Bill Clinton, registered voters, and voted in my first election. It was pretty victorious to have been part of the rejection of the RayGun-Bush 80's.
Then reality set in. Americorps was a low paying job, Bill was get knobbed under his desk while signing bills to "defend marriage" against gays, iraq got bombed weekly while doctors were arrested for trying to import medicine into the country, arms were sent to indonesia so they could slaughter the timorese people en masse for voting, the DEA rejected all local Medical Marijuana laws and arrested caregivers, and on and on ...
Basically when Al Gore was doing the robot canidate thing in 2000(see hillary08) i was not interested in the slightest. I figured that his victory was a forgone conclusion but really, was the goofy cowboy that much worse? Really?
Well I got my answer the day after when the Republicans straight got gangsta and stole the election from the american people.
The list of crimes is follwos is way too long no go into, but they make Bill Clinton look like Mother Teresa.
So this is all to say they yeah I'm not so Naive as I was in 1992, But also not quite as cynical as I was in 2000.
Kucinich is the best on the issues, Ron Paul is sexy (for a republican), Edwards is a little robotic but says some nice things. And of course Obama is by far the most interesteing, charasmatic, and "best feeling" canidate of the whole lot.
I'd love to see him win.
My Favorite thing about Obama, is his view toward Iran. The carrot approach of offering Iran membership to WTO in exchange for their possible nuclear weapons system.
In other words.
If you don't create a weapons system that will assure that the US won't mess with you, we will give you membership to organization, that will allow our corporations to exploit your people and your wealth.
I like lots of issue that Ron Paul brings to the table, US out of foriegn countries, get rid of the federal reserve, Those are two huge issues that will make us safer and more prosperous.
But Social Security, come on man, that would kill me and my father, and millions of other US benifactors of it's benfits. I would say its the best thing this country has going for it's people. It is the most solvent fund that the US has.
I don't understand why folks who are espousing what seem to be fairly progressive political views will simultaneously speak in positive terms about Ron Paul and Obama - although I certainly don't mean to conflate the two from a policy perspective, either.
I'd spend some time pointing out the ridiculousness of much of Paul's policy platform, but his campaign is so inconsequential at this point that it doesn't seem worth the effort.
As for Obama -
To my mind, there are a couple of conditions for attaining the presidency. In no particular order, they are:
1. Experience
2. Charisma
3. An extraordinary intelligence
4. Knowledge
5. The ability to lead, which means knowing who to go to for advice and how to balance varying opinion between your advisors before making the decision yourself.
Obama certainly has the charisma, and that's an important characteristic in a president. His job, to a large extent, is to inspire the american people to support his policy initiatives in order to get congress to pass and fund them.
Obama is definitely lacking in experience. The guy has spent only 2 years in national office, and spent most of those years campaigning for the presidency. He's got absolutely no foreign policy experience and very little national domestic policy experience. This is certainly a weakness in his resume. Additionally, he's never even held a normal job. If you look at his resume at wikipedia, he worked a normal job for 1 year before getting into politics full time. He's not spent any significant time at the helm of a large or small company, nor in an executive role in government.
I have little doubt that Obama has the kind of intelligence we need in a president. Not just the ability to understand complicated concepts, but also the kind of intellect that actively searches out new information rather than waiting for it passively come to him in the form of some advisor's lobbying. This may make up for the distinct lack of experience in his resume, but there are no guarantees.
On the knowledge front, where he may be lacking today, he will be able to make up via his intellect later. I think his debate performances have proven him to be well briefed on the issues of the day, so I have few concerns on this score.
Leadership - Its hard to say. I imagine it is impossible to rise to the kind of prominence that he has without leadership ability, but then, GWB managed to do so so it isn't impossible. We don't have a lot of demonstrable evidence to go on, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt except for a couple of things. He's deeply in bed with the insurance industry at a time when health insurance is the single most visible domestic policy issue, and his health insurance plan reflects a pretty significant sellout to that industry. If his leadership on the single most important domestic issue in this election is to be led by the nose by the very industry that stands to lose the most while the american people gain, then I have some very serious issues with his demonstrated leadership skills. There is a nice analysis of the advisors both Clinton and Obama have surrounded themselves with here
Edwards put healthcare front and center, and Hillary responded with a plan that was nearly identical Edwards'. Obama was last up to bat and his policy proposal is, by far, the weakest of the bunch, offering some ripe concessions to the insurance industry and leaving some gaping holes for abuse of the system by cheats. More importantly, he has attacked the other candidates' proposals from the right so if he does win and wind up instituting a policy that is less ludicrous than his own, he is going to get pounded by the GOP with his own words. There's some good writing on the healthcare proposals here
So, while I will certainly vote for Obama in the general election, he's far from my first choice in the democratic primary. Edwards is, by a wide margin, the guy I'd like to see take the democratic nomination, although I think if it were to happen, we'd wind up seeing Mayor Bloomberg enter the race as a centrist independent and either win the presidency or spoil it for the democrats, giving the white house to the republicans. Regardless, it looks less and less likely that Edwards is going to get the kind of media exposure he deserves and requires in order to take the nomination, so it is something of a moot point. I'm far from a Hillary fan, and I detest the idea of the presidency becoming dynastic in nature (and anyone who thinks we've seen the last of Chelsea Clinton is sorely mistaken, I suspect), so I object to a Clinton presidency on those grounds alone, though I have plenty of other gripes, not least being who she gets her money from, the fact that she continues to conflate her own experience with her husband's, and the fact that she'd be a massively polarizing influence in American politics resulting in a repeat of the last 6 years of the first Clinton administration - something that this country can ill afford right now.
So, it looks like it will be president Obama in 08, and by and large, that's a good thing - not least because I'd dearly love to see an african american president because of the things that would say about this nation - but I just don't agree that Obama's candidacy is the advent of some new kind of politics in America. The guy's a centrist democrat campaigning from roughly the same place Bill Clinton did in '92. And I was pretty disillusioned by the Clinton presidency, though in retrospect, it sure seems like nirvana compared to what we've got now.
My biggest concern is that we may be facing the kind of economic and environmental collapse that only a response on the scale of the New Deal will be able to deal with, so we must have a president who we believe is capable of leading us through such troubled times. And for that, I think charisma, intelligence, and a willingness to think outside the box are perhaps the three single most important characteristics in a president, and Obama scores highly on at least the first two. I think Edwards has a higher score on those three points overall, but Obama is clearly more electable at this point, and I think he scores highly enough.
Just think, we'll have 3 years of listening to Chris Matthews refer to him as President Barack Hussein Obama. That's gonna get old real fast.
"Just think, we'll have 3 years of listening to Chris Matthews refer to him as President Barack Hussein Obama. That's gonna get old real fast. "
What a dick. Thankfully my TV is broken and hopefully it will continue to be broken until I die.
I'd vote for Kucinich in the primary if I was registered Democrat. But will most likely be voting dem whoeer it is when the big election comes because there's little chance my party will be a contender in November.
there is a election that is overlooked every two years, and should have just as much attention paid to it, if not more then president. That is the house of representatives. Who is your rep and what is they about?
My is Brad Sherman, a real drip who moves with the wind. He was for the war and now he is against it. He was the first person I heard responded to de-fund the war way back when. I asked him what congress could do to stop this war if they wanted to, he paused and really thought about it and came back with the answer. I wanted to run against him, but the dude has so much money in his campaign war chest. He even got money from the asparagus growers association, bet you didn't even know there was one. I would have to really be a strong part of the community before I could even consider it and I didn't think he was worth anything in congress. He did help lead the fight to keep Social Security from being privatized and for that I'am appreciative.
The best thing about congressional reps is they survey you on your opions on issues. Then around election time, they send you a brochure on how they support all the issues you said you felt strongly about, all paid for by their office, i.e. your tax dollars.
I may or may not agree with it all but, I love that kinds of political analysis. Speaking of Dynasty, nobody is really referring to Huckalbee. Talk about a Dynasty, I'm thinking Arkansas. Another Governor from AR, there is huge retailer from that state. I know Hillary sat on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, and we all know how good they have been for the country and the world. I don't know where the man is getting is finical support from, but I do know he is a force to be reckind'd with. His support from the Christians in this country is a huge deal, and may put him on 1600 Pa Ave.
If Huck does become Pres, I hope all you Dems won't forget the inaction of the congressional democratic leadership not to go after the GWB white house on war crimes and Impeachment, due to the fact they think it will cost the Dem the Presidential election.
Hillary's a dumbass and the bitch has no backbone. Think she really forgave Bill for cheating on her? What a load of crap. This whole thing is personal (by her own admission quoted from Yahoo) and Bill knows he will have power again as first ladyman of the oval office should she be elected. They both have turned out to be fakes.
Huckabee appears to be a big pussy, although i respect his firm belief in his own sappy ass sermons.
Who knows wtf Romney believes in. He might as well be a goddamn Quaker.
McCain? Next.
Oh Boy Kucinich! That guy needs to go back to work with his Keebler brothers. They miss him and sadly no one else will.
I am all about supporting the positive. But it is a privilidged position to say that the rest is gravy. For people that depend on social security, or health care or have family in the miltary one president or another could literally mean the difference between life or death.
I'm not expecting any great change from the presidential election. Our election process is seriously disfunctional.
1. The most people get there information from one of the top six media companies. These companies also own other business and also give big $$ to candidates elections. No democratic media = no democratic election.
What to do? Media reform. We need more space on the airwaves for the voice of all constituencies (not just monied ones).
2. Elections are often rigged. If you control the election equipment, you can control the election. If that doesn't work, a stacked supreme court will help you win.
What to do? Voting system reform.
3. Political elections are funded by big business. So, who are they really representing?
What to do? Publicly finance elections
4. Two party system doesn't give us much of a choice. Particularly when the two parties aren't all that different.
What to do? Refer to items 1 through 3. Then we'll have more choices.
So, get out on the streets (or on the phone or computer) and organize on the issues (not on the candidates). Organizing around candidates which are financed by corporations and are mostly talk and don't have much of a track record on representing the oppressed or the environment - is wasted effort.
"one president or another could literally mean the difference between life or death."
i suppose that's true. but how do you go about dealing with that? and should you? is that any of your business? are you going to throw a rock in the lake?
oh and this: "But it is a privilidged position to say that the rest is gravy."
so what if you are in a privileged position? is that supposed to be a bad thing? one's position is not important so much as what one does with that position.
I understand what you are saying Towliesbong. I can't help from fearing what might come. Maybe, that's just a waste of time. I know there are better things to focus on. I just am not looking forward to having kids with the dread of what the future might bring on.
I'll be reading over the candidates and disseminating the good/bad/ugly about the most popular/known ones.
I'll most likely be going for one of those candidates who could make it easier for truckers to do their jobs(places to park rigs, HOS rules, etc.,) and of course weening this country off petroleum dependence.
Definitely, no silver bullet for that problem.
But every, little minor change and adjustment over the years will essentially take care of that.
As Noam Chomsky says, there's only subtle differences between the candidates and the parties. However Chomsky also says that subtle differences matter when you're talking about the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world.
As trivial and seemingly meaningless as your vote may seem, I think one should still research the candidates and cast a ballot.
There's millions of poor working people who will very much feel the difference between a Barack Obama and a Rudy Guiliani in office. Not to mention all those people around the world who are affected by even "subtle" changes in our foreign policy.
Frankly, sitting around and being cynical and saying that there's no real choices and not participating is a luxury.
"i make it habit of staying away from religion and politics. i dont think that it has anything to do with bikes and our rides."
Religion, I agree with. But politics directly affects our lives as cyclists. We get the right people in power and our lives on the road will be safer and healthier.
ok I'm back. I will volunteer. I have a gut instinct about the guy. maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm jaded and will give up after my first day of volunteering. maybe I will be part of the sweep to victory. depends on how much dirt comes out. everyone has dirt. you cant make it in american politics without a certain amount of dirt. and until there is some reform that actually straightens politicians out, you just have to go with the ones who project a positive but realistic view and someone who can articulate what he is doing. the powers that be will block this guy if he's for real. they'll find some kind of dirt on the dude.
I'm going to read all those articles and about his advisors.... sounds like a dirty bunch.... but they might get him elected and at least he's educated enough to be a critical thinker in the captain's seat.
Lets be real, if your going to be president, you best bet is getting those people behind, at best they get you more money you need to win the contest, but when you take that money, you are beholden to those who gave it to you, that was my point with the money.
I would hate to discourage anybody from supporting a candidate they feel is best for an elected position. I'm a purist when it comes to people running for office, if everybody was, we would get better people in office. Most are practical and vote for what they feel are the best candidate that have a shot to win. I wish the rest of the voting populace was more like me, but they ain't, so do your thing.
Big question. What does it mean to campaign for someone who is a shoe in in your state to win the state. Realistically, whatever dem candidate wins the nomination takes California's electoral seats.
Do you go to other states. Do you do phone banking for other states. do you try to raise money, do you give money.
I have one suggestion, the last two elections Presidentials elections where not lost by the Democrates but the elections where stoled. Do I need to pull out the research on this, there is plenty there. Bike Mom can contest to all the paper work I pulled out on stolen presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 for a spokendissent ride. What can you do to make sure this next election isn't taken again. This is some real important work. I would strongly suggest you look into this.. No matter who gets the nomination, (well Hilary will for sure just be another Republican so it won't really matter with her)
I have one more thing to back up what I said and that is the support for the bombing of Syria by BO, I'll get to work on that right now.
The best I can come up with so far is a report when Clinton says she supports Israel's alleged air strike on Syria in which she believes a nuclear facility,
in which Senator Barack Obama said the US was Israel's strong ally and would support the Jewish state in all security matters.
I read this as supporting the bombing also, yet he doesn't use those exact words
read and decide for yourself http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3453963,00.html
overall he talks of diplomacy but adds that force is always an option. why does he even have to go there.
to show that the US is not full of pussies and if other countries pose a clear and present danger we will fuck they up. Its nothing more than the same ole poitical chess match for all those watching abroad at us and to assure all of the 2nd Amendment supporting rednecks of this country like myself (although technically im a coonass) that we still have some sort of backbone. I honestly dont believe he ties preemption into that statement although he should clarify it and specifically say that.
Uh oh, the gloves are starting to come off. Now Bill Clinton is taking over as the speaker instead of Hilary (that can't be good) against Obama.
He said he's critical of the media not pressing Obama hard enough about his position on the war. CNN having now researched this the fact is that Clinton had 'edited' what Obama said back in 2004 at the time. Basically, Obama said he would have done the same thing as Bush (regarding keeping troops in Iraq at the time) and Clinton is spinning it as that Obama was supportive of the war from the start (which i believe he wasn't). Regardless, none of this is breaking news now as the media had totally covered it when this broke way back when.
And i also heard on some radio show that the Clinton org. had some meaty dirt on Obama but haven't revealed it yet. Don't know if its true or not, but what are they waiting for?
I can't decide if this is exciting or more like a Car Crash on the side of the road or a Paris Hilton/Brittany drama??
There is nothing we can do about dirty election trixx.
If Hillary gets the nomination (my lats choice) it will be less of an issue, not because she is a "republican" (there are a few important distinctions, however subtle) but because the Clinton cartel is as (or almost as) gangsta as the Republicans. Maybe I am wrong, but I just can't imagine Bill or Hillary rolling over the way Gore or Kerry did when they were getting hornswaggled on 00 and 04.
I hope the Dems are tired enough about losing to keep the dirty trixx at bay. But ultimately both sides will do anything necessary to win and as much as possible they will try to keep it secret and legalish.
Keeping a military response to a violent threat to the country "on the table" is, first of all, a typical electoral dodge (why commit to a policy when you can waffle?), but is also a perfectly reasonable answer. If Iran were legitimately on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, we'd be absolutely nuts not to do something about it, with a military strike as a last resort. We should definitely do what we can to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of muslim fundamentalist governments that fund terrorist organizations that hate us and/or our allies, if you ask me. But the perception of what defines a "last resort" is very much the important differentiator, to my mind, and I think Obama proved himself worthy of the benefit of the doubt on that score with his response to the potential for an invasion of Iraq back in 2003. There isn't a person running for national office who wouldn't keep a military response "on the table" but Obama is someone I would actually trust to keep it there unless absolutely necessary, based on his prior history.
Military might is, at the very least, the thing which gives weight to our ability to negotiate our way out of violent engagements with our enemies. If the threat of a military strike were taken off the table, the Iranians would have absolutely no incentive to stop their nuclear development, no matter how nicely we asked them to. The rest of the muslim world would ignore and resist any kind of economic sanction we might try to impose, and the rest of the muslim world is basically OPEC, so the threat of violence is probably necessary if we want to keep driving our cars and such - at least for reasonable cost.
But that's just my opinion. While I'd love to live in a utopia where the most powerful country in the world could be governed by a paciist, that's just not the world we live in yet, unfortunately. Pacifism also won't get anybody elected in America. Hell, you can't even get elected here without going duck hunting in public, as absurd as that might be.
"If Iran were legitimately on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, we'd be absolutely nuts not to do something about it, with a military strike as a last resort. We should definitely do what we can to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of muslim fundamentalist governments that fund terrorist organizations that hate us and/or our allies,"
dont believe the hype. what the media NEVER tells anyone is that Iran has the legal right to develop nuclear power just like any other nation who wishes to reduce carbon emissions and reduce oil consumption. whether or not they develop nukes wont make much difference in terms of a threat to anyone (that is except those who dont have nukes or are backed by nuke bearing countries) consider the principal of mutually assured destruction. Iran's constituency of 80 million people is by no means suicidal neither are their leaders. on the other hand if they actually did produce nukes you can bet that the US and it's allies would ffind it more difficult to fuck with them.
i dont think we need anymore nukes in the world and i believe that we as a country would ever implore that atrocity again (since our testing of its true nature in Japan) so though Iran has the right to develop nuke power I personally dont want them to attain a bomb.
And as far as fuckin Pakistan goes, though we have one muslim faction/govt/whatever with the bomb (two if you count India) to deal with, we dont need to be dealing with any others.
as far as India is concerned, I'd be willing to bet a billion dollars that Hinduism is the majority faith in that nation. I don't see how India could be considered a possible #2 "muslim faction/govt/whatever." That seems to be a pretty broad, uneducated category.
so does anyone ever wonder how non nuke having nations feel about the fact that they are "not allowed" to have nukes by "nuke bearing" nations.... I dont blame the have nots for being pissed.
@jchungerford to show that the US is not full of pussies and if other countries pose a clear and present danger we will fuck they up.
and
@ideasculptor Military might is, at the very least, the thing which gives weight to our ability to negotiate our way out of violent engagements with our enemies.
Correction: The U.S. population is 5% of the world population (while we consume 25% of the worlds resources).
The huge U.S. military helps maintain this unbalanced relationship - but at a huge cost.
The U.S. Military Industrial Complex kills. The USMIC costs democracy - the democratic process must be distorted to maintain something that people would not vote for knowingly. The USMIC is unsustainable - it consumes massive resources and ignores resource limits.
The biggest thread of use of nuclear weapons is the United States Tthe first to use the major one in Japan. Today the US is still using what is called tank busting depleted uranium (which is actually hot uranium with a significantly long half life, it just been depleted of it massive bomb making high value uranium). Right now in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Used in the recent past in Bosnia, Puerto Rico, and Missouri in the Good old USA. I'm sure there is some countries I didn't mention that is now is highly contamination by this radio activity, compliments of United State bombs.
The problem with threatening and supporting use forces against countries, shows that the candidate is still willing to go by force against countries that don't go along with our imperialist agenda. Yes we will talk to you first, but if you don't go along, all options are on the table.
If Iran was so crazy, why did they approach the US when we first went into Iraq this last invasion., but the GWB admin didn't want to communicate with them. I guess BO would be a kinder gentler imperialist, but an imperialist still the same. Even if he doesn't want to be, that what the job entails, especially if he has gone to the big money folks for hand outs, he will have to put fourth their agenda, so they can have more markets. That what Iraq was about, not just the oil, not the strategic position, but about having a whole new market. Everything that the rich would love to see privatized in this country, got immediately privatized in Iraq. All public commonwealth, went up for sell to private hands.
the fact is that millions of human beings feel like sitting ducks in their own countries because the US is bullying it's way around their area destroying Iraq and threatening Iran and syria and supporting oppressive anti democratic regimes like the royals in Saudi Arabia.... small wonder they hate us. they see actual repression and violence in their own back yard.
as for being pussies..... hmmmmmmm lets think about this..... who is more of a pussy? someone who fights witht the worlds most sophisticated weaponry and armor practically engineered like a robotic video game with night vision and video guided missiles or someone who has little or no resources and just straight fights to the death kamikaze style with stones and primitive explosives.
if you want to see who is the pussy and who is brave then they should have a UFC style fight with no weapons!
and another thing about the US and its policy toward Nuclear weapons proliferation. Why is it not going after former soviet block countries and trying to secure those weapons stock piel. It's common fact that the poverty in those countries especially with former gov't paid scientist and military, make the ability for a nefarious buyer, easier to purchase the weapons, technology, or scientist.
to add to my last comment. I am EXTREMELY cycnical about everything political in this country. I'm surprised I even decided to care about Obama.... but the fact that he said he would talk to our enemies is so against the grain in and of itself I became inspired....
nd another thing about the US and its policy toward Nuclear weapons proliferation. Why is it not going after former soviet block countries and trying to secure those weapons stock piel. It's common fact that the poverty in those countries especially with former gov't paid scientist and military, make the ability for a nefarious buyer, easier to purchase the weapons, technology, or scientist."
when was the last time the US actually fought against a formidable enemy? WW2 locos. and they didnt jump in until all kinds of deals were signed.... thee US came out big from WW2... well at least the war profiteers did....
Do you think Israel is a US base in the middle east and the Jewish people who migrated there are being used for US hegemony in the
region.
Or
would you say Israel, know it can't survive without the US's aid and does everything in its power to shame, bribe or manipulate the US's politician into supporting its existence. ???????
or
would you say............................................................................
I would suggest to anyone considering to campaign for candidates to put your effort behind insuring the election is valid. The risk of a stolen election is very high.
For more information on how you can participate, visit BlackBoxVoting.org
Valerie Plame, it is my understanding that she was a spy for the CIA, to make sure nuclear weapons didn't end up in the wrong hands in foreign countries.
responses in no particular order - and very wordy. But what do you expect when I post after bong rips:
Of course the US is perceived as the greatest threat to peace in the world. Anybody with more power than everyone else is going to be perceived by everyone else as a threat, particularly in the wake of an irresponsible and unprovoked exercise of that power. Without a superpower to keep us in check, we are inevitably the big threat. That also makes us the big target. The only target, really, from a political perspective.
While I'd love to be rid of nuclear weapons around the world, you can't uninvent something, and we need nukes in order to prevent others from developing them. At the very least, we need overwhelming military might in order to ensure they don't get developed, and so long as others have nukes, we need them ourselves or we cannot possibly have overwhelming military might, no matter how big and well equipped our armed sevices might be. We can't simply unilaterally disarm without drastically destabilizing much of the planet, running the risk of conflict between India and Pakistan, China and India, N. Korea and just about everyone, and about a half dozen rogue nations in Africa. For all the badness that happens in the world (much of it at our behest or with tacit permission, unfortunately), there's a boatload that doesn't happen because of the fear of reprisals from us.
We've got nukes and that's not changing any time soon. Our own security comes (or ought to come) before the security of others. At least, I am inclined to look after my neighbour before I look after a stranger on the other side of the planet, assuming I have to express a preference. Other people have nukes, the vast majority of whom are considered our allies. It is totally in our own interest as well as the interest of our allies to prevent others, particularly people we cannot consider allies, from developing nukes. If I'm in a feud with a neighbour and I see him building a catapault in his yard that is pointed at my house, I'm gonna be pretty inclined to disable that catapault long before he fires his first shot, and I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever, even if I'd much rather do everything in my power to end the feud peacefully.
I sure as hell don't think we ought to use our nukes, other than as a threat, anyway. Sure this may make us susceptible to accusations of bullying, but that's always been true. But the accusation of bully is largely a subjective label, based almost exclusively on the value you place on the goals of the exhibited behaviour - If you think someone is doing something good, they aren't a bully, otherwise they are. When we went to war with Germany, they were perceived as the bully (unprovoked, unilateral, and self-interested invasions of other countries generally being considered 'bad' from our side of the fence) and our efforts were welcomed. Now, the muslim world perceives us as the bully and the "insurgents" as a valiant resistance effort. Given that our invasion was preemptive, unillateral, and self-interested, there's clearly some merit, at least to that side of the argument, which is exactly why we need to put an end to the whole misadventure over there. But just because we allowed our leaders to involve us in a conflict that is clearly wrong, that doesn't mean that, by definition, all conflict is wrong. Would you have us do world war 2 differently, other than maybe to get involved sooner? We can disarm just as soon as there is no longer any threat to our security, but until that time, we've got a responsibility to defend ourselves to the best of our ability, and to me, that certainly includes doing our utmost to prevent nations with a perceived or proven tendency to misbehave from acquiring nukes. Sure, we've now got a proven tendency of our own, but we've also already got nukes, so that's a moot point. Does anyone really want MORE countries with a proven tendency to violence to acquire nukes? Isn't it bad enough that various former soviet states, pakistan, india, israel, and ourselves have them? Why would anyone want to allow that list to expand to include Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or god forbid, an active terrorist leader? I certainly don't think threats of violence are the solution, either, but that doesn't mean I'd want to give up violence as the option of last resort. That's just pure self-preservation at work. I don't want them to get me or my friends and family, and if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, the likelihood that they would do so would go way up. So I'm glad Obama wouldn't take it off the table. I don't think he should.
I'm not suggesting we invade Iran, or threaten them with nuclear weapons. But make no mistake that the Iranian leadership have peaceful intentions toward us, except where we force them to. The same goes for North Korea. These are nasty folks who would absolutely bully everyone else if they thought they could get away with it. It is only the fact that they KNOW that they can't get away with it that keeps them in check, which is exactly why N. Korea and Iran started acting out as soon as events in Iraq started to play out the way they have. They felt less threatened by us and started to behave the way they hadn't felt able to previously.
We live in a democracy. The way to prevent our country from acting the bully is by electing leaders who will show restraint, not by giving up the ability to defend ourselves from others under some misguided attempt at national "equality." It only takes about 30 minutes of a game of Risk to understand enough about human nature to know that deliberately weakening ourselves in order to change the balance of power is a misguided strategy. Pacifism is not a viable national defense strategy. Neutrality can be, but pacifism cannot. We'd simply be taken over by someone more ruthless. There's a reason the Swiss have a strong military tradition, including a national draft - it is what allows them their neutrality. Without it, the Germans would have walked all over them in WW2 and the Russians would have done the same during the cold war had they ever been so inclined. This is just the reality of foreign policy and national defense.
Just to rebut an arbitrary and assumptive point: not only do I read the foreign press, but I spend a good chunk of my time (roughly 30%) overseas, and lived most of my formative years in Europe. I am well aware of how we are perceived overseas, particularly in western and eastern europe.
I think this is the first time in many years of internet conversation in which I have found myself taking the "conservative" side of a political conversation. Don't be thinking I'm some kind of republican. I'm not even a centrist democrat. I'm well to the left of that. I don't like Obama precisely because I think he is too far to the right for me. But I have studied a fair amount of history and foreign policy, and I'm under no illusions of the necessity of our continued military dominance if we are to keep our country secure. But potential dominance is a very different issue from how we utilize that dominance in the rest of the world, and I'm sure we are much closer to being in agreement on that score. I'd love to see a sea change in the way we use our military might, which could be the single greatest force for good on the planet - all that money, talent, and resources being wasted on destruction instead of construction is just plain stupid, and reversing that trend would probably do more to secure us against attack than any number of bullets. But we aren't there yet.
There are a lot of countries that are dependent upon us for their defense and as a result, their economies are subject to dominance by our interests, their political processes are subject to influence by our will, and none of them compete in the global marketplace on footing equal to ours. Would we want to be in that same position relative to some other country? Cause that's what would happen if we could no longer reliably defend ourselves against any enemy. So as long as we have enemies, we must be able to defeat anything they could throw at us. Of course, the fact that we meddle politically wherever we can is bad, and the fact that we manipulate other nations for our own economic interests is bad, and the fact that we don't allow equal competition in the market is bad. Those are things I would change, because I'm a liberal. But the existence of our ability wouldn't change just because we choose to behave. And I have absolutely no faith that another country in the same position would behave honorably toward us. That's the crux of my argument. It isn't about ability, it is about actions, and so long as our actions are noble, it really doesn't matter what our abilities are .That's where we went wrong under Shrub. and that's what we need to fix.
Roadblock:
when was the last time the US actually fought against a formidable enemy? WW2 locos. and they didnt jump in until all kinds of deals were signed.... thee US came out big from WW2... well at least the war profiteers did....
Well, Korea was absolutely a proxy war against the Russians, with US pilots flying planes in south Korean colors and Russian pilots flying planes in N. Korean colors.
Vietnam was again a proxy war.
But they were most certainly formidable enemies. Hell, look what happened in Vietnam.
Al Qaeda and the forces of fundamentalist islam are presenting as something of a formidable enemy, too, not so much because of military might, but because they are fighting a new kind of war. And yes, we gave them their opportunity for that by invading Iraq. It was abundantly clear to me, and I imagine most of the rest of us, that invading Iraq would do exactly that. But that doesn't disqualify them from being ranked as formidable after waging war against our forces in Iraq for 4 years with quite a degree of success.
Plus, the big one is obviously the soviets. It may never have degenerated into a hot war, but the cold war was most definitely a conflict - one that was waged for 50 years. And make no mistake that the soviets were never a threat. They may never have actually been much of a military threat to us, but they had the capability to destroy the planet, even if they couldn't have defeated us any other way, and they most definitely had malicious intent, much as we did to them. So they were definitely a formidable enemy.
And for the record - wars are ALWAYS fought over economic interests. if there weren't war profiteers, there would be no wars. Every other excuse for war has just been a cover to win popular support for a war in defense of economic interests. Profiteers suck, to be sure, but we shouldn't be surprised that they exist.
As my East Indian Hindu accountant tells me, "It would be irresponsible to think that Hinduism completely influences the Indian government." I believe him.
Then I think, could you imagine a fanatic/extremist polytheistic regime or faction with a nuke? How funny would it be to watch the guy with his finger on the button decide which god (note: small g) to appease?
Its bad enough that Allah hates me, but what would it be like to add many many other deities alongside him? Could GWB's Holy Lord defeat a whole army of Supreme Beings?
Let me clarify b4 I get lynched here - All of my personal experiences with Hindus (friends and random encounters) are really good relationships and my overall perceptions of the religion is peaceful.
The Clintons beat Obama in NH although by 2%. I bet they contracted out GWB's voting machines for help. Id even bet that good ole Jeb installed them in NH for them. Geez, how is it that on the democratic side of our politics even though a candidate can get the majority of the national vote another candidate can get more delegates? Case in point - Clinton 187 delegates Obama 86. How come the republicans secure their delegates based on majority vote alone?
Kinda like Baseball's AL and NL having different rules regarding designated hitters. Retarded imho. But thats it, just my opinion. probably some important reason out there that im just ignorant to.
Clinton cried and husband now speaks for her. I saw this shit coming from far away.
I don't know where i saw the cartoon, but there is a panel cartoon where Sadam (or some other fanatic) getting to heaven and seeing 72 computer nerds sitting around playing with computers.
I think the basic question comes down to this.... do you believe that all human beings aspire for the same goals in life. do you believe that all humans being essentially generally operate on the same driving forces in life. if not then the argument is dead.
I personally believe that all human beings and human societies are essentially the same regardless of cultural differences.... we all want to live comfortably and we all have extremists in our midst on both ends of the spectrum...
we have extremist resource collectors (rich people) and we have extremist resource rejectors (bums) we have narrow-minded people (religious) and open minded people (secular) we have highly educated people and non educated people and these patterns are present in every nation every culture and the pendulum swings the tides ebb and flow as has been happening since the first forms of life banded together to create more complex forms of life.
so for people to dismiss entire societies and nations and not to consider them as our human-equals is pretty much the basic problem
well I dont accept the way the media is "selling me" the simplistic image of peoples abroad or our "enemies" because I choose to respect humankind as far more complex and far more similar in traits across nations and cultures than we've been led to believe.....
case in point. this is going to put me on quite a few hate lists but I dont believe that Saddam Hussein was nearly as bad as the western media tells us.
case in point, the other night I was discussing the ME with a friend and the idea of women's rights under Saddam Hussein came up. we actually did some google searching and found that under the rule of the Ba'ath party and right in line with the civil rights era, women's rights were increased.... not only that, but education in Iraq was increased as well as standards of living.... sure, there were human rights violations.... but point me to a nation on this earth that doesnt have human rights problems and KNOW that Iraq was created in 1920 drawn up by western powers who drew straight lines across ethnic regions that previously had taken thousands of years to form.... by definition if Iraq was to survive with its newly drawn borders it would have to be ruled wth a heavy hand. Iraq should never have been. It should have been wiped off the map because it was a falsely created state by western powers. It would be as if some foreign government re-drew the borders and forced southern california to merge with northern mexico and restricted our ability to travel to northern cali. think ABOUT that! what a logistical nightmare it would be for our local powers to suddenly be put in a tub with mexican local powers.
some interesting things to consider....
women's rights in Iraq (pre fall of Hussein):
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
As in anything in life, we are bound by what we know. You can only know what you know. Or in other words, "we are only as smart as we are ignorant, and we are all ignorant to a point."
The things that turns me on about political discussions or anyone getting involved in the political process or just following it, is that you are bound to learn something more, and for that we are all the better as a society. I strongly encourage all of you that support a particular candidate or cause to get involved today, especially if you feel strong enough to speak out about it anywhere, including here.
Put then in politic as in life, it is all perceptions, bound by experience, which give us our knowledge, which creates an opinion. That may be truth to an individual, but truth is subjective and none of us will ever ultimately know it (accept for Kyber, he got it all figured out)
It is a perception that the US is perceived as the great threat to peace in the world, because we are the greater threat to world peace. We have Military bases in 63 foreign countries and US troops in 156 countries.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.htm
This does not include covert operations, and black site (prisons ran by other countries for US intelligent services) which illegally detain people.
It wasn’t just recently that the US irresponsibly and unprovoked exercised that power. This has been going on since the birth of this nation, not only on foreign countries outside of this land but on foreign countries on this land i.e. Indian Nations (in which we don’t honor treaties with these nations).
This list is interesting, (has attacks that one may justify, including the national guard in the LA uprising, I think you can read the one is which the US is being far reaching and imperialist) http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
if you can’t see which ones I’m referring too, I can point some out. Haiti twice in the last ten year, just recently 2004 removed President Aristide by kidnapping by US marine and taken to central Africa, and then told by US Secretary of State Colin Powel, that he was not allowed in the Caribbean region when
Jamaica welcomed back to the region---Powel says he a threat to stability in the region.
here is some background on President Aristide and his forced dealings with the United States
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n04/hall02_.html
I won’t go on, this will get boring. But I will say Grenada 1983, Panama 1989, Iraq was occasionally bombed during Clintion administration, to keep them in check so to speak, Somalia (might have been US troops under UN banner in 92-94 but the United States recently encouraged Ethiopia to attack Somalia for the US), and you do remember Vietnam and the bombing of Cambodia and Laos in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s
Then there is the backed violence Chile Sept 11,1973 encouraged and approved by Sect of State Kissenger by Pincohette to Usher in Chicago Economist Milton Friedmans purist capitalist reforms with lots of killing disappearance to shock people into accepting these so called reforms , Angola in the 70’s and 80’s El Savador in the 80’s. Indonesia in the mid 60’s and Indonesia slaughters in East Timor backed again by Kissenger http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/lem02/chomsky1.html, Aiding both side in the Iran - Iraq war in the 1980’s, against congresses wishes may I add. These are just some examples, there is more.
Remember a majority of this happened when there was Superpower USSR to keep us is check, (the game doesn’t completely work that way, he did our invasion and Military aid and the Soviets did theirs) , This happens partially due to the fact, our biggest export is arms. Much money made by the US, former Soviet Union, China, France and Britian. This also give those countries influence in the areas they sell the weapons to .
this one is not so by the US gov’t but in the US.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021202/bergman
Whats the point of this infomation. To dispute the fact that it not just a perception, but by the US’s very action, we are the Greatest threat to peace
Let it be known that we do help other countries to develop nuclear weapons, Iraq in the late 70’s early 80’s
Pick up "Spiders Web" at the Beverly Hills library and read the beginning about how the Reagan cabinet was beside them selves when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, everybody in the cabinet accept for Alexander Haig wanted some sort of revenge on Israel for the bombing. The book talks about how the US backed Agriculture loans to Iraq so they could fight the Iran Iraq war. Which bought Iraq chemical weapons with the US’s blessings. Where would you suppose Israel got the technology to develop their nuclear bomb program? North Korea received their know how to build Nukes through Pakistan’s Dr. A.Q. Khan, all the while Pakistan was a valued US allie.
Should we even being threatening to use such a weapon as a nuclear bomb, that is crazy talk. We have known, and common sense of a 5th grader will tell you that is just a no win for everybody. As I stated before, we are using high level nuclear weapons with out the big blast of Hiroshima. We are also developing what is called bunker buster nuclear weapons, right here in northern California. Just like with our tank busting nuclear weapons used in Iraq and Afghanistan what will happen with the radioactive dust from these weapons. We may possibly be breathing them right now.
Use of Nuclear weapons is not self preservation, but self destruction. The earth is closed spear, what we do in regard to using Nuclear weapons will effect everybody on this planet.
I think we have to look at what we have done and continue to do, as to why Iran and North Korea has possible ill feelings towards us. We are a threat to both of them. We have had troops and guns pointed at North Korea for the past 50 years, would you feel a little a anxious to defend your self as was written, "my neighbor has a catapult in his yard that is pointed at my house". In this instance the North Koreans could never dismantle our catapult, so if they get one of their own, the likely hood of there neighbor using one pointed at them, is greatly diminished. I mentioned before that Iran tried to talk to the US when it invaded Iraq, but it feel on deft ears. Iran is surrounded by United State in Iraq on one side and United States in Afghanistan on the other. All the while the President of the US is calling your country EVIL. The United States was cool with Iran, as long as we had our Shah in power. Remember in the 50’s when Mosaddeq nationalized Iran’s oil industry and pushed oil corporations out. That was the US’s first CIA coup de taut.
The people of Iran remember that. Iran also see Israel as there biggest threat,. Who backs Israel, the United States. If Iran had a nuclear bomb, that even ups the playing field and usually assure that nobody uses them.
Nuclear weapons are also used as a bargaining chip in ,dealing with finance and trade. Which the United States has a strangle hold over a big part of the world. Libya traded in there weapons program with the United States for trade. North Korea uses there weapon program to gain food and fuel imports for their people
World War 2 could have easily been avoided if the Untied States forgave (as what happens in most wars) its debt to it’s European Allies. If that would have happen then our Allies would not have had to force Germany into paying back reparations for the war, that is also usually forgiven after conflicts. If the Germans didn’t have to give up most of there assets to their foes in World War I, they wouldn’t have had to go and invaded other countries for their wealth. This story isn’t talked about much. You can read about it in Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson, which talks about our Imperial economic ways.
Which leads me to come to a conclusion to why we use so much force all over the world , militarily and economically. The worlds and this countries biggest problem. Why people don’t treat each others as brothers and sisters that they are. It’s greed, the constant desire for more. We don’t have these Military Bases, troops and weapons around the world to keep us physically safe, but to protect our economic interest of exploiting others people wealth.
Any candidates that talks about working with others, sharing with others, to make there lives better will ultimately make our life’s safer. That why I continue to support Kuchinch, he is the only candidate who speaks of spreading peace and prosperity around the world
"this is going to put me on quite a few hate lists but I dont believe that Saddam Hussein was nearly as bad as the western media tells us."
He was bad, no doubt about it, but no worse than many of the shitheads the US has supported over the last couple of decades. Just look at our support of right-wing death squads in Central and South America, or our support of Saudi Arabia for that matter.
that is funny and scary at the same time. Funny because is is so absurd, and scary because that non-sense can actually have people believing it.
The one thing that they didn't mention is that Barack is trying to hide the fact he is black.
OH i did not go there. take it back, take it back take it back.
Really though, he has been avoiding discussions of race, distanced himself from support Jesse Jackson and even had William Bennett compliment him on the fact he doesn't bring up race. I would say this is all part of his strategy to win. Yes this country still does have a problem with race and sex.
Obviously, it is a huge step of maturity for this country that the two front runners for president is a women and a man of color.
"Obviously, it is a huge step of maturity for this country that the two front runners for president is a women and a man of color."
Front runners for the Democratic nomination. We live in a country that is still quite racist and sexist. We're fortunate to live in a region that's not as racist and sexist but it's going to be tough for Hillary or Barack to win the whole nation.
Check this shit out --------> I just registered to vote today for the first time ever (but just in case i need to cancel someone else's vote out.)
Seriously that shit was funny like how someone was mailing Christmas cards out to everyone in SC in the Romney family name citing passages from the Book of Mormon stating how Jesus had multiple wives, etc etc. roflmao. Let the war games begin!
"He was bad, no doubt about it, but no worse than many of the shitheads the US has supported over the last couple of decades. Just look at our support of right-wing death squads in Central and South America, or our support of Saudi Arabia for that matter."
how do you know? I just pointed to Human Rights Watch website that would appear to negate a lot of what the western media has told me.... I'm confused. the guy ran a secularized government.... literacy levels were the highest in the region in the 80's according to the cia world fact book and
"I just pointed to Human Rights Watch website that would appear to negate a lot of what the western media has told me.... I'm confused. the guy ran a secularized government.... literacy levels were the highest in the region in the 80's according to the cia world fact book"
That stuff is very true.
But...
Scan through Al Jazeera for accounts of his atrocities against Shi'ites and Kurds. And his relatives were pretty fucked up, too.
Oh, and just to be clear. My opinion is that we have no reason to be in Iraq. Hussein and Iraq had very little or nothing to do with international issues. I still believe it was all about oil and pumping money into Halliburton's coffers.
"Scan through Al Jazeera for accounts of his atrocities against Shi'ites and Kurds. And his relatives were pretty fucked up, too."
I hear you man.... scan through zmag, npr or bbc NY Times and you'll find plenty of info on how the US govt oppresses blacks, latinos, leftists, communists and Branch Davidians Guantanamo, prison rape etc....... so what else is new.
all I'm saying is.... DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE.
the media almost NEVER portrays the Iraq invasion as a war for oil. Think about it. We're being lied to. how much? who fucking knows.... but you can basically find dirt on any regime anywhere anytime.
now go see if you can read about evil col momar kadafi. He really nationalized all those things you can make money off of. Bad Boy
Iraq wasn't just oil, it was also to privatize the whole country. Why just go for the oil, they went for the whole ball of wax. Education health care, utilities, that is big big money.
interview the right people here and you can put together a really GRIM view of America.... start in New Orleans and end up somewhere in the deep south.
speak out against GWB in the wrong way and have the feds at your door.... same shit different regime.
"But my point is that Al Jazeera has an entirely different perspective than the western media."
I'm sure they do but as I understand that channel runs out of a pro US backed country and as far as I know it is supported by commercial advertisers.... some food for thought..... though obviously they would report closer to what the feeling on the street is... well at least so much as Fox news reports in relation to the sentiments on the street here...
to be clear... I'm not saying Saddam was a saint, I'm just saying that there are a LOT of indicators that he wasnt nearly as bad as the western media would portray. and in fact he did a lot for his country and for his people including women's rights and integration of the various ethnic regions. all in all Iraq was becoming a powerful nation economically and that was the real threat to US interests and the interests of our allies including Israel
@ Sexy:[Obama] distanced himself from Jesse Jackson support and even had William Bennett compliment him on the fact he doesn't bring up race."
I just saw an interview with Jesse Jackson and he said NOTHING about Obama "distancing" himself from him. He said that Obama has not yet asked him to campaign for him and basically acknowledeged that that is a delicate strategic decision that he is leaving to the Obama campagin to figure out.
As far has weather Obama mentions being black ...
Come on now really? When was the last time you heard a presidentail canidate talk about their ethnicity or being expected to?
But use some common sense. If Obama stirrerd up the pot and made race an issue in this election it would basically spoil any chance he has of getting elected. Yet, if he doesn't make these things a big issue ... what? he's a sell out?
Give the man and his handlers a little bit of credit, he is treading very lightly to run a campagin that has a chance of winning. He doesn't have the luxury of Shirly Chisolm or Jesse Jackson, (or Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for that matter) who knew absolutely that they wouldn't/couldn't win. Obama has to be exteremely mesured about what he does or says, because, in the general election all kinds of racist/ opportunist fringe groups will be doing whatever possible to try bank on racist fears to steal votes from him.
Obama is one of the most popular/most progressive/ most electable canidates that we have had since 1972. I think he is aware of that and is trying to appeal to the center without alienating the left.
He doesn't need to braodcast his support for the african american community, he has demonstrated it though his history and his actions.
here is a small sample of the BS and how our media feeds it to us....
yesterday US it was reported that US naval ships were "provoked" by Iranian boats. the headlines were all over the place and every story just plain old took the Navy's word for it, AND very very very very very discreetly reported the truth - that US ships had trespassed into Iranian waters. IF Iranian ships or chinese or Canadian war ships fucking tresspassed into US waters guess what the reaction would be??
any reader who isnt paying attention would see this story and be like "yo WTF? fuck Iranians!" but scroll on down.... way down....... to almost the last paragraph.... and you get the Iranian side of the story and that is that the US ships were tresspassing and they came to see what the deal was (as any normal counrty would do when confronted with tresspassing war ships)
"Generally speaking, according to the supreme leader's [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's] guidelines, any foreign fleet of vessels or any foreign jet fighter trespassing Iran's water or land borders or air, whether in the Caspian Sea or Persian Gulf or Shatt al Arab, the Revolutionary Guards should react or at least threaten to counterattack," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is general rule, so if U.S. forces trespass, we will respond."
that ONE little paragraph is the kernal of truth.... you have to dig for it folks but it's in there
the british naval officers "held hostage" (read: arrested) buy the Iranians a while back?? THEY TOO were tresspassing in Iranian waters!
the US runs around the gulf coast with their warships tresspassing into territorial waters daring countries like Iran to do something about it and when a little country like Iran does... ooooh boy does it get used for propaganda. my guess is this latest tresspass was to make headlines before the chimps visit to the ME.
This is heresay, but it came from a friend of mine who's brother works on the Lebanon side of the boarder next to Israel.
Remember that little war for 34 days in July 2006 where it was said Hezbola fighters launched a anti-tank missles attack on Israeli's on the Israel side of the boarder. I was told that the Israeli's where always trying to provoke by riding there tanks over the boarder and pointing there cannons toward Lebanon. This time the Israeli soldiers fired, and the war was off, and two Israeli soldiers captured
When I went to Cuba and visited The Cuba's Guantanamo Bay military outpost. The Cuban soldiers talked of the US land sailers shooting at them on occasion.
OK, I'm not reading all the way back to when I signed off last night, but comparing stories of the "oppression" of minority groups in the US and the wholesale slaughter of large populations of ethnic groups in Iraq is a bit far fetched. Last I checked, its been a while since we gassed a couple hundred thousand of our citizens. I distinctly remember the pictures of gassed villages that came out of northern Iraq when I was a kid, and the only recent events that compare are the pictures that came out of Rwanda.
Saddam was a nasty, evil guy - right up until the day he went into hiding. His mass atrocities had long since been stopped, but he still ran a police state in which large numbers of citizens up and disappeared for little to no reason, often because they were denounced by a neighbour who stood fit to benefit. Sounds an awful lot like Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, just to name a couple of obvious comparisons. He 'integrated' the ethnic groups in Iraq through force of arms and oppression, not via a political solution that had any hope of surviving the dissolution of his dictatorship, as has been amply demonstrated. There is no level on which Saddam's regime was tolerable. He had delusions of grandeur with regard to his foreign policy and ran a brutish police state domestically in which a small percentage of the population (nearly all minority Sunni folks in Saddam's Ba'ath party) reaped the benfits of the country's wealth.
That said, there are dozens of countries on the planet with regimes and conditions that are as bad if not worse, and we sure as hell aren't invading and 'nation building' there. Saddam was most definitely NOT a threat to the US on any level, and we had no business going in there on any basis other than humanitarian, and no one ever made a humanitarian argument for doing so until all the other straw man arguments had been knocked down. And if a humanitarian argument had been put forward, I doubt very much that the american people would have supported it at that time, since it was clearly a distraction from our mission in Afghanistan, which had far more validity and utility. However, had we gone in there on a truly humanitarian mission, things would likely have turned out different, both because it would have been a truly international coalition of partners and there is little doubt that the Iraqi people would have perceived our efforts in a different light. It is hard to say whether the rampant incompetence of the Bush administration would have screwed the effort up anyway, and it is a hypothetical argument that isn't really worth pursuing, since its too late now.
My point is simply that defending Saddam's regime on any basis is wasted hot air, if you ask me. Argue that we had no business in Iraq because the country isn't our problem (though our sanctions, in combination with Saddam's corruption, had devastated its economy over the preceding 12 years), or for bunches of alternative reasons, but please don't argue that Saddam was good for the Iraqi people. He wasn't. He was one of the nastiest dictators of the 20th century.
I hate my computer. I had a whole thing written out. Im heading to eat but chew on this article for a while I will answer ideasculptor in depth. I'm not crazy just seeking truth about the world so I can understand it. I believe it's possible.
I can tell you one country that has been real bad for the people of Iraq, worse then Saddam probably ever dream of. Thats the good old USofA Lets not talk about all the Iraqi people that have been killed in this current invasion and occupation of Iraq
Lets go back in time to operation Desert storm, remember the babies being pulled out of the incubator lied told by Nayirah, the daughter of the Kuwait's Ambassador in Washington coached by PR firm. Hill & Knowlton. She got everybody worked up, to get Iraq out of Kuwait
Remember the Highway of death. That when Iraq soliders and civilians where trying to flee and surrender. The United States armed forces bombed one end of the main highway from Kuwait city to Basra, sealing it off. They bombed the other end of the highway and sealed it off. They positioned mechanized artillery units on the hills overlooking it. And then, from the air and from the land they simply massacred every living thing on the road. Fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, and armored battalions poured merciless firepower on traffic jams backed up for as much as twenty miles. When the traffic became grid locked, the B-52s were sent in for carpet bombing." Our forces did not wait for the fleeing people to surrender, they did not surround them and force them to surrender, they just exterminated them.
How many people died from this, we don't take enemy death numbers. Reports where varied, more then 5000, that is for sure. Some esitimate as high as 90,000. No one really knows for sure. Some estimates say as high 200,000 Iraqi people killed in that 43 days. 300,000 to 700,000 injured.
I would be interested to know what this is based on.
All his stated positions emphasize diplomacy, wilthdrawl from Iraq. "
Politicians will say anything to get elected.. I wouldn't trust a word Obama says simply because he is supported by our military controlled media. When there is a media blackout on him or they start smearing him then maybe I'd change my mind. Diplomats and politicians have their own language as well which isn't easily understood by most of us peasants.. "wilthdrawl from Iraq" really means reduce troop levels to a point where the 14 massive bases can be maintained to ensure total privatization while multi national corporations exploit the countries people and their natural resources w/o impedance from Iraqi subjects/citizens/(terrorists). War comes in many forms.
Pro war = Pro imperialism = The core ideology of both parties. Iran and Syria are next if any of the front runners from either party are elected. which is almost inevitable. The policy has already been determined it's now up to us to put a friendly face on it.
I said media blackout or smearing.. direct political attacks are an effective tool with predictable results ..sleight of hand. Huge difference between that and how Cynthia McKinney or Ron Paul are depicted.
Divide and conquer is the method. Social engineering is the science.
ATTACKED!?. Fox news is going to attack everybody Democrat who has a chance of winning. John Stewart is comedy and attack and makes fun of everything including itself.
Why do I bring up point about this candidate that I don't think is worthy of taking the office of whatever.
People may think they are getting change when in reality they are getting more of the same plutocracy with maybe a gentler face. Yes there are difference between Obama and Clinton. and Kerry and Bush. Not enough to get my vote. I vote for people, I feel strong about, strong about what they stand for. Not who is the" least worse" of "who can get elected". If everybody supported the candidatesr they thought would be the best, and not who is the least worse, and voted for the best, we would get the best. Instead we get people supporting mediocre candidates that might do the least harm, but do harm no doubt.
more info on US navy or as they called themselves "Coalition War Ship"
with Iranian navy boats. This explains what goes on everyday in these situations More Audio The video is being humorous trying to prove a point.
@sexy:
I can tell you one country that has been real bad for the people of Iraq, worse then Saddam probably ever dream of. Thats the good old USofA Lets not talk about all the Iraqi people that have been killed in this current invasion and occupation of Iraq
That goes without saying. But nothing I've said has been a defense of our actions in Iraq or a defense of our intent to do anything there. I've merely pointed out that Saddam was NOT a good guy and the benefits of his rule over Iraq are not a valid argument against invasion. There are plenty of perfectly good arguments against invasion, but that's not one of them, in my opinion.
@Sexy ... its clear that the Daily Show bit is included in that video is for comic relief and is included to highlight what is happening in the legitimate news stories.
I do think there is a difference between attack ads run by opponents and a news agency inventing information about a candidate and spreading it as fact.
Also if it is a forgone conclusion that Fox will attack Obama as a "nearly communist" candidate does that assume that there may be some distinction, however minor that separates him from the field of Republican candidates.
Look, I'm not really interested in shilling for a mainstream candidate. I personally, have a great deal ambivalence about mainstream american politics. I don't expect much from any politician at this point but I't not much to expect sombody to do better by the people than what we have had for the last (8/16) years.
On the other hand, I think there is a legitimate difference between the candidates that are worth exploring.
To just say that somebody is "Pro War" because they are not under a media blackout. Just doesn't fly for me. I have to judge a candidate by their statements and actions.
Look I'm not under any delusions that the "media" do anything that doesn't make them money. They are owned corporations that are formed for that purpose. Obama is covered by "the media" even Fox, because people are interested in him and people will watch their commercials when the news station is covering a handsome well spoken guy that has a chance of becoming the president.
Its simply that.
Its the same reason that Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, or Dennis Kucinich get coverage in the news, because there stories sell ads, period.
what I am saying is that the mainstream media distorts shit and in a BIG way. furthermore the media is either really fucking lazy, clueless, or doesnt want to ruffle the hand that feeds them.... because now adays more than ever the media doesnt actually investigate shit. they just report what the military says or what the president says they dont actually go and check to see whether something these scumbags say is true.
example... you've repeated the common falsehood that Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of people.
lets think about that..... a country with 20 million people loses 10% of it's people by violent extreme means in one fell swoop. These SAME 20 million people are now CURRENTLY making life fucking difficult for the WORLD's most sophiticated military ON EARTH. no esplain to me how they couldnt rise up against a FAR WEAKER Iraqi army??? Maybe because hundreds of thousands were not killed, maybe because the circumstances of the deaths that DID occur were not so clear cut as the republicans and their supporters would have you think.
I think it's true that Saddam ran a police state. I think it's true that anyone who posed a threat to said police state would "dissappear" and that's fucked up.... to that I ask you.... what happens to political subversives or threats to the state in THIS country??? they ALSO dissappear to Guantanamo or a number of secret CIA detention centers... so WHATS the difference between the US and Saddam's Iraq??? THE US HAS A FAR BIGGER BUDGET.
BUT you can not ignore the positive side of things which was that Saddam enabled greater social services, he provided education services and the literacy rate in Iraq was better than most other countries in the ME. no small feat considering that the ME is under constant siege of subversion by the CIA, Mossad British Secret Service and a plethera of other subversive elements trying to get at the oil reserves and/or create instability.
DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE.
I'm not asking for people to believe me... I'm asking people to QUESTION AUTHORITY and QUESTION the SOURCES.
re: the media and money. It's not at all about money. The people who control the organisations that use the media to control perception don't need money. They can print it out of thin air if they want via several of the central banks around the world. It's about power, deception and creating false reality. It's about convincing peasants that they have a voice so we will vote and go back to sleep for another 4 years.
"They can print it out of thin air if they want via several of the central banks around the world. It's about power, deception and creating false reality. It's about convincing peasants that they have a voice so we will vote and go back to sleep for another 4 years. "
I hear you man... money is the BLOOD of power. and it takes money to fund a powerful propaganda machine... someone has to pay the peasants to upload the lies to the server dont they?
how do you know?
who supplied the chemical weapons?
what were the circumstances of the attack?
Did IRAN ALSO use US supplied chemical weapons?
WHY was the US covertly supplying weapons to IRAN (our alleged sworn enemy at the time) via the auspices of the Iran contra scandal while simultaneously supporting IRAQ?
Does the US use chemical weapons?
Do US based weapons manufacturers make chemical weapons?
Does the commercial or state media in other democratic countries distort the image of the US to their people?
What makes you think the same wouldnt be true in the US of distorting the image of other countries?
most of the Chemical Weapon Technology in the 1980's, for Iraq came from France, but was paid for by Agricultural loans from the Labor bank of Italy, Atlanta GA branch, backed and guaranteed by the US Gov't.
money interests own the loudest voices in our nation. money interests support the money interests that own the loudest voices in our nation through extremely expensive ad rates that only money interests can afford therefore it takes a lot of money for a candidate to put their name and ideas in the mainstream media. the mainstream media decides, based on how popular a candidate is (rather than presenting a diversity of viewpoints), whether or not said candidate can appear in their privatized "national debate" programming sponsorred by youtube. money interests then filter out certain questions and present them to the prefferred candidates. money interests bury the truth somewhere deep in paragraph 11 on page 5.
stevo wrote:
"It could still turn into a McCain Presidency when things settle although i find that a bit hard to see."
Not a chance. The Republican Elite need McCain to run every 4 years to keep level-headed, moderate, Americans who otherwise would jump ship in the party. He keeps the illusion alive that their is debate inside the party, and that you can affect change if just enough Republicans supported McCain. This is the same role that Kucinich plays in the Democratic Party: Kucinich keeps antiwar, environmental, and anti-globalization activists from abandoning the party in favor of a third party (Greens, Peace&Freedom, etc), under the guise of the hope that you can pull the Democratic Party "to the left".
Neither Kucinich nor McCain EVER change the corporate-backed, pro-NAFTA, imperialist agendas of their respective parties. Rather, they deliver their voter base back to the party, when the real corporate candidates are finally elected.
Despite all the Obama, Edwards, Romney, and McCain hoopla, I still predict that the outcome will be:
CLINTON vs. GUILIANI
aka covert fascism vs. overt fascism
aka gentle Imperialism vs. harsh Imperialism
aka backdoor union-busting vs. in-your-face union busting
Take your pick! Under Democrats, the activists fall asleep, while countries are invaded, and corporations given more power. Under Republicans, everyone comes out of the woodwork, to protest the same.
Here's another piece with some insightful comparisons of the democratic frontrunners on domestic policy. As usual, it is Edwards leading the charge, Hillary aping everything he says, and Obama coming in from the right with a weaker proposal. Pretty much exactly the same thing that happened when Edwards introduced health care as a major campaign issue.
I still don't get why Obama is popular with folks who consider themselves progressive.
Idea, can you put into plain english, the difference between edwards obama and clinton? I didnt get anything from that nytime op ed piece he never got specific and he used this phrase to differentiate Obama's plan: "appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals"
can we hear from someone who knows for sure rather than specualtes that a plan "appears" to be what he thinks it is?
First, Edwards has consistently led from the front on all domestic policy issues amongst the democratic candidates. Hillary and Obama refused to commit to an explicit policy statement on health care until Edwards announced his plan. The same goes for economic policy. So right away, I give a point to Edwards for just being willing to lead instead of pander and follow.
From a policy perspective, it is easiest to differentiate on the health care front, which was also the first big policy discussion at the start of the primary campaigns. Edwards came out of the gate by proposing a plan which would provide a health insurance subsidy for folks with low incomes, mandates that everyone have medical insurance in order to offset the excess costs of treating the uninsured in the ER and 50 milion americans failing to receive preventative care, and provides a govt insurance plan that is an option for any one to purchase instead of private health insurance. Of course, it limits the ability for ins. companies to cherry pick only healthy customers by setting price caps and guaranteeing access. It is intentionally designed so that, should the federal insurance prove to be both effective on both the price and care fronts, that the system would gradually evolve into a single-payer healthcare system as larger percentages of americans enroll in the federal insurance. This is a nice way to prevent the industry from writing off the possibility of a single payer plan without forcing what is currently viewed as an unpalatable choice on 'conservatives.' The reality is that there is good reason to think that the federal plan would be superior to private insurance on both the cost and quality care perspectives, but I won't get into that here.
Hilary's healthcare plan is almost identical to Edwards' plan, except that while it includes a mandate for insurance, it doesn't include a penalty for failing to comply, which is arguably much the same thing as having no mandate at all. It would be an easier difficulty to repair legislatively after the fact, however, and might be enough to get it past some of the GOP members of congress/senate, shoudl that prove necessary. The copycat nature of the proposal isn't a bad thing at all, but she would have been better served to have pushed the envelope herself a bit rather than just following Edwards, but given that Edwards has never been a terribly viable candidate, at least his policy proposals are carrying some weight with a front runner.
Obama's plan is certainly the weakest of the three. It isn't entirely dissimilar, but it has a fundamental weakness. While it does include price controls in order to guarantee access, it doesn't include the concept of a mandate that all taxpayers have insurance. This means that healthy folks will simply cheat the system by not getting insurance until they get sick, and the price caps will ensure that they will be able to get insurance when they ask for it. Since the whole point of insurance is to amortize the expense of a single patient across a larger population of healthy people, failing to include a mandate is a serious deficiency which will add to the costs of insurance for those who do the honorable thing and get insurance when they are healthy.
On the economic policy front, Obama again comes into the field from the right. His economic policy includes tax cuts that we can ill afford and completely forgoes subsidies to state and local governments or aid to those in the most dire economic straits. This is basically the classic divide between liberal and conservative economic positions, with the conservatives claiming that tax cuts stimulate the economy , driving more work and more money to the disadvantaged while simultaneously increasing revenues to the govt through taxes on increased incomes. Unfortunately, the reagan/bush years and GWB's reign have clearly put the lie to the entire idea. Obama isn't out there touting a GOP economic platform, and he does talk about rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts, but both Edwards and Clinton do a much better job of retaining the progressive nature of our tax policy (rich folks pay a higher percentage), which has been the foundation of the middle class since the New Deal and whose erosion has seen a return to income distribution that rivals that of the gilded age - a tiny percentage of the population controls a vast percentage of the nation's wealth and that dominance only increases their earning potential at everyone else's expense. Progressive taxation has a redistributive nature to it that prevents capital from accumulating in an ever smaller population of rich folks. It is one of the reasons the estate tax is important. If we don't tax inheritance, then families are free to accumulate more and more wealth across generations, and that accumulation comes at the expense of those at the bottom of the economic ladder, not their competitors at the top. Obama's economic plan also doesn't really contain any green energy proviions, whereas both Clinton's and Edwards' do. That said, it is unlikely that Obama would completely ignore the environment, but he's definitely campaigning from the right, and as such, it is in the interest of his strategy to leave the environment out of the economic policy discussions.
Another issue I have is that by campaigning from the right of the other two, Obama has been openly criticizing the Clinton and Edwards platforms from the right, which is really going to open him up to criticism from the GOP during the general election should he find himself forced to move a bit to the left during the general election, something that seems all too likely to be necessary. Its hardly a deal breaker, but it sure doesn't help matters any.
I don't have all of the details of the various economic plans at my fingertips, and I'm at work, so I can't spend a ton of time on looking into it now, unfortunately, so I'll try to post more as I stumble across it.
Mostly, my objections to Obama are encapsulated in the fact that I consider myself a fairly progressive liberal on many issues, and he just sits to my right on a lot of them. While I'm reasonably laissez-faire when it comes to economic policy, I don't have a knee jerk reaction against govt regulation where appropriate (and clearly the financial and securities industries are in desperate need of some well reasoned regulation), and I think we need to approach fair-trade in a truly fair manner, rather than referring to economic policies that gratuitously favour the developed world as "fair" trade. No one has really gotten a commitment from Obama when it comes to copyright protections and such, but I'd wager he'll prove himself fairly pro-corporate, which most definitely means anti-consumer when it comes to that issue.
In reality, I dislike Hillary enough that when Edwards is finally taken out of the campaign, I'll probably wind up in the Obama camp (though I'm definitely not committed to that path, yet). I dislike the idea of a dynastic presidency and a ruling class that I oppose her on those grounds alone, but I also don't think she has proven herself a leader in any of her roles in govt (first lady, senator, or presidential candidate), and she doesn't come across as having much by way of charisma - something which is ever more necessary in our media driven political landscape. Obama has charisma in spades (bad choice of metaphor, perhaps?), is clearly a very bright guy, and definitly not a republican, so I won't have any issues voting or the guy if/when it comes to that, and should the ticket be Obama/Edwards, I'd really be quite pleased.
Here's an editorial that specifically addresses the commentary in the last editorial I posted, from a pro-Obama standpoint. I need to follow some of her links to get to the actual details, but it seems likely to be interesting.
The man has bought into the bizarro-world view of the Reagan administration that has been pushed so hard by the right wing for so many years now. Here's a well constructed argument that pretty much puts to bed everything good Obama has to say about Reagan, as well it should.
Unlike his other rivals for the Democratic Party's
nomination, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards
and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Obama has
refused to unconditionally endorse U.S. ratification of
the treaty establishing the International Criminal
Court. He has stated his openness, however, to
ratification after addressing what he claims are
inadequate safeguards protecting members of the U.S.
armed forces.
that is a big deal to me.... thats a bummer that Obama is not hip to this. the US should sign that treaty long time ago. There's no reason that we should have to protect anyone from being tried as war criminals, human right violators etc. signing the treaty would curb some of that behaviour... people would be held accountable for their war crimes.
While it does include price controls in order to guarantee access, it doesn't include the concept of a mandate that all taxpayers have insurance. This means that healthy folks will simply cheat the system by not getting insurance until they get sick
I actually have a problem with a forced health care system.
If the govnmt is gonna provide health care for everyone that cool. But the idea that everybody should be forced to buy into the system ... that sounds a bit scary. So what, if you get hurt and aren't paying for insurance you get fined? go to jail? That seems like it could be pretty ill for those of us who live below the line.
.............................................................
On the Reagan thing I have to totally disagree with that critique. Obama wasn;t "Lionizing" Reagan. Obama doesn't talk at all about how Regan led, he is talking about how he ran, how he constructed his campaign, about how he tapped into people's feelings and expressed that through his charisma.
Reagan obviously did a lot of bad shit, he let a lot of ugly things happen as well.
But what he did do well is convince people that he was down with him. I think this is what Obama was talking about. The Regan myth and how it tapped into something that people were looking for.
just pointing out a candidate that say he is not backed by lobbiest, but ends up being backed in a back door way by lobbyist.
All candidates and politician should have there feet held to the fire when appropriate. True the system is geared to only the rich or those that can get mega money. That has to stop and we are all the people to make it happen. A politician elected by big money isn't going to bite the hand that feeds. The change must be forced by the people.
with the majority of those who know and take it, like yourself and real majority who has no idea, you are absolutely right.
We will continue to live in a Plutacracy, and the richer will get richer until it collapse, and the money you have saved is worthless, we will be in a depression. I will finally lose weight from not being able to afford food. You will tell me what happen and the majority won't know to look at what happen to try to do something about it until they start hearing the truth from others.
We will all be riding bikes then. Congratulations, the Velorution will be alive. All because we are too lazy or too ignorant to changes things for the better. Every cloud has it silver lining. VIA LA VELORUTION!
"We will all be riding bikes then. Congratulations, the Velorution will be alive. All because we are too lazy or too ignorant to changes things for the better. Every cloud has it silver lining. VIA LA VELORUTION!"
it's not that we're lazy, it's that it takes so much energy and literally is such an uphill battle to overthrow an economic force like consumerism or plutocracies that you have to just take it or better yet tolerate it. people have shit to do. families to take care of. they dont have time to revolt against a system that at the end of the day keeps you relatively comfortable. besides, people wont start getting antsy until it's too late. there's definitely a vibe out there that america has peaked. and that it's going downhill. bummer. I'll still be dope riding my bike while people are dpressed cause they cant afford a bimmer. or even a car. ride ya motha fuckin bike ride the subway start walking all you obese americans. get healthy.
and as for a depression, bring it! money should be worthless. what does everyone get so worked up about money for. learn to live off land. learn to be thrifty and self sustaining. learn to find interest and entertainment for free. fuck it we should go back to the barter system. grow our own foods, live slower, live cheaper, enjoy natural and family experiences, release ourselves of want for a bunch of crap. of course I can appreciate the finer things in life, a good living situation, a good job, lots of vacation time... but I dont need to have TV I dont need a car, I would rather enjoy good food or travel. I feel sorry for the people that only have memories of theme parks and disneyland trips as the "quality time" that their family spent together. some empty pre-made cookie cutter entertainment... wow. Those places have become giant commercials for themselves. the entire time you are bombarded with consumerism. go take a hike.
and when it comes to owning land... right now it's kind of a leash.... and it's usually not an asset. unless you manage to rent it out and use the proceeds to travel. I know a guy who did that. paid for his three month vacation. but seriously owning land is over rated.
I ran into some Ron Paul supporters the other day. Boy did I tear them new ones. they were young and naive. talkin about how he was going to bring down the federal reserve. LO FUCKING L! I asked dude, "oh yeah? how does intend to actually do that again?" "uhhhhh" yeah bud, go research this shit... and Ron Paul opposes the ICC. "do you know waht the ICC is?" "uhhhhhhhhh" yeah bud, go back and study shit. dont just parrot what some political organization tell you to.
seriously... there is something very strange going on with this whole democratic nomination gibberish. why are they dragging it out? What's going on here.
Its called an election, and the Clintons hold major power in the Democratic party, and they don't and won't let go until all resource and possibilities are exhausted.
"Its called an election, and the Clintons hold major power in the Democratic party, and they don't and won't let go until all resource and possibilities are exhausted"
they've been done exhausted their resources. They are funding this thing with their own money which means to me that something else is up.... people dont put money up for their own election unless it's going to return to them somehow....
not many people do anything unless there is a return... but politicians ho have to rely on their own funding always strikes of suspicion. what are they getting out of it? why did they do it?
it's not going to be their own money. If they get elected, it covered, they get it back. I don't know if H. Clinton is still holding her Senate seat, if she is, she still gets it back. Legislation is not free.
Bill gets a million a speech, its not that big of a deal. Romey did it, Huffington against Feinstein, Bachkecki' for gov, remember that guy from North west airlines. (I don' t know how to spell his name) Its a gamble at worse, a investment at best
I just had a thought that will piss all of you Obama supports off.
I think it would be real interesting if Clinton got a selected from the Superdelgates, then Obama ran has an independent.
Seeing that it would be a shoe in for McCain, because of the split in votes, Romey would even things up and run as independent also.
Then people could actually vote for a Nader or Ron Paul candidate and not be badger that it is a wasted vote. Not that people who would Vote for Paul or Nader would ever think that it is a wasted vote, it would let people that agree with the positions they hold not buy into the spoiler lie, and vote for the candidate that reflects there views.
Just kidding. I will vote for Obama. That being said, I don't see a big distinction, when it comes down to it...between the republicans and the democrats. Our hegemony is shifting to the right, and I don't like it....
What exactly are you going to be doing for this campaign Roadblock?
Please keep us updated daily or weekly
Roadblock, knocking on doors?
Roadblock, dialing for dollars?
Roadblock delivering yard signs?
Obama 08 website looking just like mr.com and la50mm.com?
GO GO GO Iraq occupation, GO GO GO GO War On Terrorism.
Fight AL Qaida in Iraq, get the bad guys
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
More troops = More war
Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
lets bump up the military budget $600 billion to $1 trillion per year is not enough.
I only vote in the voting booth, never with my mouth. that would be uncuth, especially while on a bike. do i get another beer Marino? I never collected my beer from the last election
since yesterday was the election of the judges. Until recently it was almost impossible (for me at least), to find out about people running for judicial office. Now another hot midnight ridazz political tip. www.metnews.com . Another ten people who read the political forums on mr.com will have a place to check out a little history/commentary on those running to judge you.
I am really excited about the Obama candidacy.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have any illusions about salvation coming from a mainstream candidate. But by all measures, here is the best mainstream presidential candidate I have seen in my lifetime.
I don't agree with all of Obama's stated views but I do love how he is running. He is outflanking the GOP on every front and is truly inspiring voters to support him, not to just vote against the other guy.
I predict that McCain will get crushed.
Even with all the Foxy antics and GOP dirty tricks including but not limited to: fear mongering, vote stealing, and mud slinging. It is clear that if Obama continues on his current course, he is going to mop McCain up.
Clinton got about as dirty as you can get in primary race, with the momentum of a powerful political machine, and the assumption from day -100 that she was a shoe-in for the nomination.
She didn't expect to get blind-sided by a candidate who speaks to people's better sides both in is rhetoric and in the way he ran his campaign. Not to mention running a better, smarter campaign.
McCain is headed down the same road. He's listening to Karl Rove and those who ran the winning Bushmachine. But that simply won't work for him.
1) people are tired of that fear-mongering bullshit
2) people are bored of the religious zelotry (my word).
3) McCain just doesn't have the stomach for it.
pit that against a candidate who is self-imposing cleaner campaign rules on himself and his party, is inspiring tons of people to support HIM, not just keep his opponent out of office, and is doing an amazing job fund-raising with the majority of that money coming form individual donations under $200.
I was completely ambivalent about Gore/Liberman and proudly voted for Ralph Nader 2000 with no regrets.
The next time around I was still ambivalent about Kerry/Edwards but supported them in the voting booth out of principal because the previous election had been stolen outright.
This time around i am fucking CHARGED to support Obama.
I'll be doing what I can on a personal level to help see Obama become the next president.
I don't have any illusions that I will agree with 100% of Obama's positions or, that, like any politicial, he won't need to be pushed hard by the people to make decisive change. He does however seem much more receptive to that than any canidate we have seen in the last 20 years+.
This year the argument that there is "no difference" between the 2 candidates holds absolutely no water. Obama's proposed policies are MUCH fairer, MUCH saner, MUCH more peaceful, and will get us much closer to being on the right path.
Unless you are waiting around for shit to get so bad that we devolve into full blown revolution, it really is time to step up and
a) support obama
b) hold him to account on his promises and rhetoric
But I'd rather see him riding a too-small hybrid wearing jeans and pants cuffs like than something like John Kerry all kitted up on a Serotta. Dems have enough problems being seen as elitist and out of touch.
(I'm a fred too, so this ain't even about making fun of freds.)
just sayin, in my experience of the US there are way too many crackers, red necks, and white trash hicks still out there wanting to keep da black man down. plus, hispanics and blacks are not exactly kissing cousins these days either. add that to jews being convinced obama is anti-israel (don't bother arguing with me on this one), and old guard republicans on the national political level still being a real force does not, in my analysis, make obama a winnable candidate. but, hey, i'm wrong on other points all the time, so what the fuck do I know.
Indigis, I think you are right. I think McCain will take it. The news media is being VERY kind to the guy and portraying him as a centrist which indicates to me that the media is on his side.
chill out.. today was day 1 of the general election campaign. Stop thinking you have it figured out. get on your bike and leave the false predicting to the pundits. Obama 08!
in truth, though I hate to say this, I think the dems don't really want to win this one.... that would explain all the stupid shenannigans and switching up of the primaries.... and how the hell did florida come into play yet again??? I mean if the dems won, what would they be stuck with? a bunch of empty promises. the powers that be don't want to see a withdrawl from Iraq and the dems are sitting here promising everyone that will happen. the occupation of Iraq benefits Israel, it benefits the oil companies and war machines and it benefits the dollar by keeping one more oil rich nation attached to it rather than the euro.... no one can go up against forces like that. dems are just another faction of the business party and at the end of the day they answer to money interests with a bent towards marketing their efforts to the working class.
I couldn't find McCain's speech after Obama clinched it. Apparently nobody bothered to YouTube it because it was so utterly flat and uninteresting.
He kept saying "That's not change we can belive in ..." then would pause with a stupid grin on his face that was either because he was waiting for the applause linke to kick in or wondering how his writers could stick him with such awful material.
This clip sorta makes the point. The best retort that John McCain can come up with is that Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second term.
I'm sure thats a good laugh line at the AARP but for the rest of us who were born after 1958... It more like Jimmy Who? Oh that guy that builds homes for homeless people ... wasn't he president once? I don't see McCain taking it to the finish line trying to call Obama Jimmy Carter as an antidote to being linked to Bush.
notice the white stripes of the flag behind mc cain are hued red. that's cause NBC so kindly added some color to John McCain's pastey white face! and this reporter is throwing fuckin softballs at this bitch to boot.
I have to say, that if what trick keeps portraying here keeps up, McCain doesn't have a chance as his campaign will keep making him look incompetent.
However, I don't think McCain is stupid enough (as he's been around since dirt) to not understand that he needs to connect with the younger generation, especially in this election.
I estimate he will bounce back within the coming month and start to give Obama a serious run for his money.
you Obama supports are funny. This candidate you support, talks off hope and his two biggest supporter on this thread are full of fear that he can't win. I know history has shown that the Dems are famous for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. This race is a shoe in. Trickmilla explain it clearly above. The only thing that I would be concerned, and I'am, (not that I'm so gun-ho for Obama, its that I support peoples right to vote....that all some do) is Voter Caging, that what cause GWB to steal the elections twice, especially in 2004. If you want to help this candidate, find out where it is going to happen, go there and stop it. Probably Ohio and again, and possibly Florida and New Mexico too.
The people you refer to as those that wouldn't support a candidate, because of the candidates race, don't vote, and most likely wouldn't vote for a Demarcate if they due vote. The only state I saw evidence of Dems not voting for Obama is Pennsylvania, that might be a minority of Dems who supported Clinton, saying that they would support Mc Cain if Obama won the Primary.
As for the Obama being anti-Isreal, him, Clinton and Pulosey ran over to AIPAC after the Primary and assured Israel they are not at all anti-Israeli.
don't worry, there is a complete youtube of Obama speech to AIPAC, I like this one with george galloways comments and spin on the speech excerpts
as for McCain with the Media, Fair has been doing coverage on how
the mainstream coverage on McCain is easy going on him and hold obama to a different standard. There podcasts of FAIR'S COUNTERSPIN show check out show (4/11/08 - 4/17/08) and
(5/30/08-6/5/08) each piece is about 11 minutes long, Very telling
If he does try to go for the youth is going to look something like that picture of Ducacus looking absurd in a tank.His only hope is one of his classic self-deprecating jokes ... that may win him a few chuckles and exactly 0 votes.
White mom and white 19 year old daughter in Los Angeles being candid in our video booth.
Mom: "who you going to vote for honey"
Daughter: "not Obama"
Mom: "why not?"
Daughter: "because he lies and calls us typical white people"
Mom: "so why are you going to vote for Mccain?"
Daughter: "because he's a white male"
If there are racist folks here in a democratic state and city you think Obama has a chance in hell of winning anything in the heartland?
This was just published in Bicycle Retailer & Industry News.
==========( begin article )==========
06/12/2008 5:00 PM MST
Obama Pledges Funding for Cycling
CHICAGO, IL (BRAIN)‹Barack Obama, in a private 20-minute meeting with members of the Bikes Belong board of directors, told them if he were elected president he would increase funding for cycling and pedestrian projects. And the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also said he would support Safe Routes to Schools programs.
He also told them he seldom makes promises on what he would do if elected president, but that this was a promise he would keep. Tim Blumenthal, executive director of Bikes Belong, laid out the industry¹s position on boosting funding for cycling-related projects and for Safe Routes to Schools at the meeting.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) called the opportunity for industry leaders -- both suppliers and retailers -- to meet privately with a presidential candidate so early in a campaign for the White House was historic. "It's important for this industry to understand that it is a force," said Blumenauer, shortly after Obama left the event.
Stan Day, SRAM¹s president, said that Obama "gets it." He pointed out that Obama understands that bicycles can be part of a solution to issues as diverse as health care, obesity, energy and environmental policy. "He does his homework and he can connect the dots," he said.
Of the estimated 160 guests who turned out for the event, Day estimated close to 60 represented the bicycle industry ranging from suppliers, retailers and advocates. Among the guests were Greg LeMond and his wife, Kathryn. Obama, in his remarks to the guests, thanked the LeMonds for attending.
Chris Kegel, owner of Wheel & Sprocket, a six-store chain of stores in the greater Milwaukee area, drove to Chicago early Thursday evening to attend the fundraiser at the home of F.K. Day and his wife, Leah. Day is vice-president of SRAM.
"I think it's very important that we (the bicycle industry) were involved with this type of event," Kegel said. Kegel added that he personally supports Obama and believes that Obama can help end the partisanship that divides the country.
Chicago retailer, JoAnne McSweeny, owner of Trek Bicycles on Michigan Avenue, said she has followed Obama's career for years and supports Obama's run for president. She, like many others, said Obama's support for cycling is important for the nation's future.
During a conversational 15-minute speech, Obama poked fun at himself telling the crowd that when he was photographed last weekend riding a bike with his children, he looked like Urkel. For those unfamiliar with Steve Urkel, he was the nerdy, bespectacled semi-hero on the long running sitcom "Family Matters." The show was centered on an African-American middle class family living in Chicago.
Obama said he had no idea at the time he was riding with his children that he would soon meet with so many members from the industry. However, he pointed out, he knew photographers would be snapping photos of him on his bike, and that he wore his helmet to set an example for the kids.
Tom Petrie, president of Velimpex, who flew to Chicago Thursday afternoon, said he didn't expect to hear Obama lay out a specific agenda for the bicycle industry. "However, it was refreshing to see somebody trying to unite the country instead of trying to divide it with wedge issues. I find it refreshing and, frankly, necessary," Petrie said.
I guess your right ... we should just throw in the towlie.
After all what does it matter that Obama is leading in all the polls, or the fact that he has (a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-money5-2008jun05,0,5194805.story">raised about 3x as much money as McCain from a vastly larger donor base. After all, there is a racist mom in a "blue" state who apparently watches fox news. So what if her own daughter is going to cancel out her vote.
Never mind the facts. All we need to know about 2008 is the anecdotal evidence of a few racists on the TV who say they won't vote for Obama because he is black.
So what are you doing now that he has won the primary. I know he is presumptive the presumptive nominee. But he is gong to be the Democratic candidate.
Great speech tonight. I had to tune in to C-Span to actually see the whole thing without idiot commentators or snippets and sound bytes offered by the idiots and bootlickers of the mainstream media...
This is about as good as it can get in this country right now in this system.
Unfortunately, the media is completely on john mcsame's side. Channel 2 channel 9 channel 11 channel 5 and channel 13.... no... I don't have cable.....
Damn Al Gore gave a great speech too. If you are interested at all in politics do yourselves a favor watch both their speeches rather than rely on the baboons of the news media.
@rb Yeah, those were both great speeches, for sure. During Gore's speech I kept thinking, "Why wasn't this guy elected president? ...Oh, right, he was."
That's just it, had I skipped watching the speeches and depended on just the news media I would have thought that Obama was all empty rhetoric.... but in his speech he outlined a lot of specifics and made a lot sense.
I was disappointed by how pro-Israel Barack and the democrats are. What is the strategic significance of our support for this nation?
It seems like more could be done in our true interests if we let Israel take care of itself, and instead fostered legitimate arab government reform.
But I'm not mid-east expert.
The guy gave an awesome speech, and it was thrilling to hear someone talk about ending our foreign oil dependance in 10 years. TOo bad he never came close to talking about trains and bicycles as a solution.
It was a great speech, I'm glad I tuned in. I would have liked to have heard more about solutions for transit, but I have to give Obama credit for his V.P. choice, who is a huge advocate for developing rail as an alternative to cars, and rides Amtrak in his commute. Obama's policy could be stronger, but it's amazing to me to hear have heard Amtrak mentioned multiple times in a national convention. After bikes, trains are my favorite form of transit, and I'd love to see rail become a viable alternative to cars and planes for longer trips and commutes. I want my Subway to the Sea and bullet train to San Francisco.
I think I might have to take back what I said about Mc Cain winning.... unless americans are just dead brained morons, I don't see how in the hell they could get over that Mc Cain chose a complete ingrate for VP and still vote for him:
this is one sad sad joke on what our country has become....
So on friday I signed up for an account on obama's site. They give you a phone list of 50 names to call in battleground states of voters they believe can be swayed. I haven't made any calls yet but I'm working up the gumption.... but I also felt it was pretty trusting of the obama campaign to give out numbers to just anyone who signs up. I was imagining karl rove and his operatives signing up and crank calling on behalf of obama.. Ha.
I'm watching the debates right now. And let me tell you.... obama knows what up. AND I think america knows it too. Now, it would be nice for one day there to arise a person with nader's views but someone visibly market-able to the american consumer.
Here's why:
*Believes we've been living beyond our means
*Calls for responsibility in economics
*Buffett supports him. Buffett's not the richest man in the world for nothing.
*Understands a "spending freeze" won't work and some programs are uneffective, others do need more resources despite our economic strife.
*Understands American public is cynical about politics because of the traditional tit for tat m.o. of campaigns.
*Wants to provide a $4,000 annual tuition credit for college in exchange for community service. (this is very cool)
McCain's an ASSFACE if for no other reason than he claimed that PALIN is a good role model for women. He should be shot for saying that.
Man.... you are prolly right.... but Obama is very smart. I would rather have a highly educated youthful person who takes time to speak on things in depth. A lot of us feel that obama is not going far enough.... but you have to realize that even tipping the scales towards obama's view of the world is important.
all we'd be doing is putting someone who sounds articulate and well educated, and dare i say it, hip to what's going on... but in essence policy is not even written by congress. lobbyists and corporations run this country and they decide what needs to be implemented and how it can benefit them.
It matters. When you get heart surgery you want the best surgeon possible with the highest education. I want someone educated leading this country not some out of touch half conscious old man just a heart beat away from a complete moron. There's a subtle difference you know. I would trust Biden to lead the nation if the unthink-able should happen.
There will be no elections because of Goonches, look it up.
But, did I hear McCain say that veterans will be able to TEACH upon their return, "without all the classes and certifications?" HAHAhahaha man SNL has it so easy. Or did he steal the Army Teacher concept from them. Either way that's good comedy.
I didn't read all this forum, but seems to be very Obama biased. Geez, nobody likes McCain? I'd be stoked if he was my granpa. He's kinda funny and pretty sharp for his age. Oh well. We're not voting for grandparents I guess, so I'm leaning towards that guy with the funny name.
Oh, and veterans to teachers- with none of those pesky classes or certifications?! Hell yes! I know several veterans of this Iraq boondoggle and they all come back fucked up, traumatized and drinking more than I thought possible. I mean drunk before noon, everyday. Perfect teachers for the kiddos!
(I'm not stereotyping, I'm speaking of the 5 or so people I can think of with somewhat close friendship or ties to.)
Not to mention the people they're getting for military nowadays. When I was in Army in 2000 there were several convicts in my unit- court bargain to join-up rather than lock-up. And the % of those has gone way up since then. I wouldn't want those guys teaching my kids.
Watch this while keeping in mind the fact that through the Homeland Security Act, Bush can declare martial law(i.e. suspend the november elections) in the event of disaster:
I think there is a certain threshold that the american public has tolerance for the shenanigans in washington.... but martial law? as much as the extreme left wishes for such a dramatic action on the part of the bush regime.... it wont happen. bush and his handlers are smart enough to know their limits.
1. What Joe Borfo said (VERY LIKELY..unless Obama wins by a big enough margin that would make stealing the election impossible)
2. A Government induced, via HAARP, natural disaster that will take place the day of or shortly before the election. Bush declares martial law and suspends elections.
3. Obama wins the election, and as it nears January 20, 2009, the government will use HAARP to create a disaster and Bush will invoke the power to extend his term indefinitely, barring Obama from the white house
I will guarantee in writing right here right now that martial law will NOT be declared. its more likely that obama will lose due to the bradley factor.
I hope you're right. It is more likely Obama will lose because of voter caging and other forms of election fraud than the bradley effect.
I really don't understand how people can be undecided or even THINK about voting for McCain after the past 8 years. I don't understand how people can vote republican at all. I really just don't. It makes no sense. Why do people vote against their own interests? How many times do people need to get hit over the head before they realize who's hitting them??
In fact I will give you this..... martial law will be declared if mc cain wins. Because the people will call to arms. There will be rioting in the streets. The powers that be know this. But also know that people in power are the smartest most agile people by nature. Collectively we all have a voice in this even if we don't have an absolute democracy. We have a voice because people have had enough of the chimp. He got everything he wanted. He even gangsterred us STRAIGHT UP for a cool 700 billskis.
Hey. Let me add this..... I think Bush has it out for Mc Cain. He thinks the guy is a nincompoop just like a lot of people do. So.... I think he purposely released the financial info EARLY so that he could throw the election to the dems!!
I mean this is the type of shit that the repubs would hold out and keep secret till after the election so as not to ruin their chances. I think this group, the bush regime, the neo cons, came in, hijacked the republican party with money going back 30 years. Real republicans are ron paul republicans. These bush people are on some spend tax money and get rich. Anyway, they realized that they are running out of a burning building and decided to throw mc cain under the bus. The repubs know they can't solve this shit. And they know they need to get away from iraq. Its a hot potato.
The best part was how the repubs hoodwinked mightyheromcdork into choosing Palin!!!!! Hahahahahah he got so doinked and the bush ganked everyone for 700 billskis. These guys are geniuses. They basically went to the dems and said hey look,if you guys agree to pay us 700 big ones we will throw this doofusaurus mc cain under the bus. "Boy howdy do we have a doozy of a plan."
ahhhh but you see, they WANT McCain to get in that way Rove and Cheney will be able to pressure him to resign and then Palin will take Bush's place as their puppet!
remember that Bush got REALLY NASTY on Mc Cain in 2000 from what I understand during the primaries. LOL!! now he's like fuck this Mc Cain asshole talkin shit about me.
Basically it's like this. the republicans are out of steam on Iraq. they know they have to get the major troops out and they dont want to preside over a detreat. everything the repub hijackers wanted, they got.... relatively low level civil war and chaos in Iraq and a 40-50 year occupation of it minimum (keep in mind the US still occupies japan and germany and many states across the world.). the US has Iran surrounded and buffered to protect Israel, it now has a presence in the region to intimidate every nation in the region including the most powerful society which is Iran. there is a ton of oil wealth in Iraq. it's on for Bush's friends. everyone of his buddies are getting away and are getting a piece!
death to them all. Have you seen Iraq for Sale? you are right, Bush has done well for his cronies. It is really infuriating, everything they are getting away with. They need to be rotting in jail, instead they're the richest, most powerful people in the country. makes me sick
would we even know if martial law was declared? ..some say it already has been and is just being rolled out incrementally. could be. would we even know what to expect? TV tells us that martial law means tanks in the street and people everywhere going nuts.. doubt that will be the case. it's much easier controlling the sheep using less aggressive methods. martial law really just means the exec branch is the law of the land; signing statements, threatening congress to legislate a certain way, etc.. look around; we may be there already.
so it's retarded to think that martial law(the TV version) would be used to prevent obama from being elected. obama will continue where the bush/clintons left off because he was compromised by the same organisations that have set policy for the last 30+ years. the only difference will be that most of the activists will go back to sleep because they will think the battle is over.
ummm no its not retarded, thank you very much. Martial Law could be used to suspend the elections because Bush could just say "elections are suspended" and since under martial law, what Bush says MUST go, the elections would be suspended. So no, it's not retarded to think that could happen, because it COULD happen. ok thanks.
I'm actually with asparagus. I think asparagus hit the nail on the head. they arent going to roll out tanks (except in the poorest areas where they already do battering rams etc.) they will just do it incrementally and behind the scenes, like they have always done....
Wake up America the two party dictatorships is control by the major corporations. Barack Obama is a pawn. Never ever support a candidate base on what he says, they have lied and will lied again. Just look at Obama's record in congress voted for the national ID card, Patriot Act, FISA bill, and continues to fund the war in Iraq. These entire votes were against the constitution, and the people. He will not end the failed war on drugs, or cut spending. He wants to invade Iran a nation that has no air force, navy and is no threat to the national security of the United States. The republican puppet well his pretty much George Bush the III. So are we screwed people perhaps, however we can vote for a third party candidate. One recommendation Cynthia McKinney running for the green party, do not take my word for it, I am not a television reporter. Remember when you vote for the lesser of two evils your still voting for evil.
I agree with you. However, politics is politics and the thing is with politics is...you gotta play politics
Third party candidates have no hope of winning. It just won't happen, unless there is a massive upheaval in the electorate. And considering the population of the United States, I really really really don't see that happening.
By voting for a third party, you are voting for the party that opposes your interests. For example, a vote for the Green Party is ACTUALLY a vote for the Republican party. Why? Because that vote is a vote that would have gone to the Democrat party had there been no green party, but instead is cast on a third party, therefore it is a vote that the Democrats lost, and a vote LOST by a democrat is a vote GAINED by a republican. This really helped Clinton in 92 when Ross Perot took so many votes away from the Republicans.
this is why when I hear people say they are going to vote for McCain, I tell them VOTE RON PAUL!!
And yes, Obama did all of those things you say, but in this election it is TOO IMPORTANT to throw your vote away on a third party. I know neither candidate is good (I was for Kucinich!!!) but when it comes down to it, Democrats put in place regulations that directly benefit me, you and all of the middle class that makes up the nation. Republicans do all they can to benefit the ultra-rich = %2 of the population. and when it will inevitably wind up to be either Republicans or Democrats running the country, it is futile to vote for a third party.
martial law doesn't mean literally using military force in the context of NSPD 51. When I say martial law, I mean Bush using his near dictatorial powers that that directive gives him. It gives him the power to suspend all laws and effectively crown himself dictator. A dictator can do what he wants...including suspend elections:
"""The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
When the President determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the President can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
Translated into layman's terms, when the President determines a national emergency has occurred, the President can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over."
Realistically speaking yes, a third party is not going to emerge to take the presidency any time soon if at all sadly. However if a person chooses a third party, and who was so sick of both candidates they otherwise might not have voted at all, at least the third party vote is a message that says I value what this third party has to say, and if you don't start appealing to those issues, your main party will continue to lose these voters.
Also, in a sort of manipulation of the short comings of the electoral college system, which should be abolished, if you choose a third party candidate over the main candidate you disliked less, than you can vote your true belief with little risk of swaying the election in favor of the candidate you dislike the most. Most of the election is really decided by the few "swing states".
To really solves the whole delema of voting third party without fear of it benefiting the candidate you hate the most, we need to adopt a run off voting system. Where you can vote your second and first choice. If your first choice loses, than your votes count toward the second choice, rather than benefiting the choice you dislike in a backwards fashion. So for example in 2000 if someone voted Nader than Gore, their votes would have supported Gore, while still counting support for Nader and the green party at the time. Our democracy is outdated, we need to start adopting some democracy 2.0 features.
In the previous post I meant to specify that one has much less to fear in supporting a third party candidate unless they are in pivotal swing state, which California is not.
I'd also like to add while every is consumed with the presidential election, there a number of ballot measures on the local and state level that are very important. Even if you could care less who sat in the White House, it's worth it to vote for the local propositions that will effect you more directly, and if you don't like anybody running for president , just leave the presidential box blank.
1. Obama publicly and repeatedly promises to escalate the US military intervention in Afghanistan, increasing the number of US troops, expanding their operations and engaging in systematic cross-border attacks. In other words, Obama is a greater warmonger than Bush.
2. Obama publicly has declared that his regime will extend the 'war against terrorism' by systematic, large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan, thus escalating the war to include villages, towns and cities deemed sympathetic to the Afghan resistance.
3. Obama opposes the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq in favor of redeployment; the relocation of US troops from combat zones to training and logistical positions, contingent on the military capability of the Iraqi Army to defeat the resistance. Obama opposes a clearly defined deadline to withdraw US forces from Iraq because US troops in Iraq are essential to pursuing his overall policies in the Middle East, which include military confrontations with Iran, Syria and Southern Lebanon.
4. Obama has declared his unconditional support for the position of the pro-Israel Lobby and the colonial expansionist and bellicose policies of the Jewish state. He has promised to back Israeli military attacks whatever the cost to the US. His abject servility to Israel was evident in his speech at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington 2008. Top advisers who have long and notorious links to the top echelons of the principle Zionist propaganda mills and the Presidents of the Leading Jewish American Organizations wrote the speech and formulate his Middle East policy.
5. Obama has promised to attack Iran if it continues to process uranium for its nuclear programs. Twice, just weeks before the elections, Obama's running mate Joseph Biden spelled out a series of 'points of conflict' (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia and North Korea) emphasizing that Obama 'would respond forcefully'. Obama's senior Middle East advisers include leading Zionists like Dennis Ross, closely linked to the 'Bipartisan Policy Center', which published a report serving as a blueprint for war with Iran. Obama's proposed offer to negotiate with Iran is little more than a pretext for issuing an ultimatum to Iran to surrender its sovereignty or face massive military assault.
6. Obama unconditionally supports Israel's expulsion of Palestinians and the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the leading cause of Middle East hostility, warfare and the discredit of US policy in the region. With three dozen Israel-Firsters among his leading campaign organizers, top policy advisers, speech writers and among the likely candidates for cabinet positions, there is virtually no hope of 'influencing from within' or 'applying popular pressure' to change Obama's slavish submission to the Zionist Power Configuration. By supporting Obama, the "progressive intellectuals" are, in effect, allies of his Zionist mentors.
7. On the domestic front, Obama's key economic advisers have impeccable Wall Street credentials. He gave unquestioning and immediate endorsement to Treasury Secretary Paulson's $700 billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the richest investment banks in the US. Obama has failed to challenge Paulson or the banks over the use of Federal funds for buyouts and acquisitions instead of loans and credit to producers and homeowners. Obama's backing of Paulson and the Wall Street bailout is matched by his meager proposals to suspend mortgage foreclosures for a three-month period, pending re-negotiations of interest payments. Obama proposes to escalate transfers of government funds to mismanaged financial institutions and bankrupt capitalist corporations, in efforts to save failed capitalism rather than pursue any new large-scale, long-term public investment programs which will generate well-paid employment for workers.
8. Obama's economic team has openly declared their embrace and practice of 'free market' ideology and opposition to any effort to engage in large-scale injections of government funds in publicly-owned productive activity and social services in the face of wide-spread private sector failure, corruption and collapse.
9. Obama embraces failed private sector health plans, run and controlled by corporate insurance companies, conservative medical and hospital associations and Big Pharma. He publicly rejects a universal national health program modeled after the successful Federal Medicare program in favor of inefficient, state-subsidized private for profit plans that are costly and beyond the means of over one third of US families.
10. Obama is and continues to be an advocate for Big Agro and its highly subsidized and profitable ethanol program, which has increased food prices for millions in the US and for hundreds of millions in the world.
11. Obama advocates continuing the criminal embargo on Cuba, hostile confrontation with Venezuela's populist President Chavez and other Latin American reformers and the duplicitous policy of promoting protectionism at home and free market access to Latin America. His key policy advisers on Latin America propose cosmetic changes in style and diplomacy but unrelenting support for re-asserting US hegemony.
12. Obama has not proposed, nor do his free market advisers and billionaire financial backers envision, any comprehensive plan or strategy to get us out of the deepening recession. On the contrary, the course of piecemeal measures presented by Obama are internally inconsistent: Fiscal austerity is incompatible with job creation; bailing out Wall Street drains funds from productive investment; and pursuing new wars undermine domestic recovery.
If Obama was so serious about a 90 day moratorium on foreclosure, why didn't he stick it in the bailout bill. He is pulling the direction where the democratic party is going. He could have put that in the bill and directed all in the Democratic party to vote for it. He has that power right now.
I think understand where you are coming from. In general, I agree with most of your political perspectives. At least in theory.
The thing is ... at this point in time, we are left with 2 realistic choices in this election. One guy or the other is going to get the job.
Obama is far from perfect in my book ... but then again my views are well to the left of most people in the US and I have a hard time imagining the majority of the electorate supporting anybody that I truly agree on on most issues.
Until we get a system of instant runoff voting its always going to be this way.
Let me ask you something.
Of all those points will Johnny Mac do you any better?
On any ONE of your points do you think that JM will offer better leadership?
Obama strikes me as the kind of person who unlike GWB and JM will actually pay attention to the electorate and if the electorate pushes him to a more progressive view point will be more open to that.
Politics aside.
I'll never agree with any one candidate.
Look at how these people have run their campaigns.
Who would you rather have managing the country? The person who built a massive grass roots movement, and displayed and extraordinary level of focus and discipline? Or the dude who has bumbled along for the past 8 month pulling one stupid trick after another out of his ass to try and stay the race?
Obama represents the most significant step toward a progressive mainstream administration I have seen in my lifetime. Sure there is lots of room for improvement.
I don't think that voting 3rd, 4th or 5th party is "wasting" a vote. I think its always better to be counted, even if you can't stomach the mainstream candidates.
In a state like California ... it doesn't really matter that much because there is usually lots of air between the dems and repups in presidential races.
What i think it more important though is to focus energy on holding the elected administration accountable. And in this particular election it is clear that the canidate that is going to be more apt to listen to progressive concerns is going to be Obama far and away.
Please Vote! there is a bunch of other stuff on the CA ballot that is really important and will be a much closer call than the presidential race.
Yes there is a difference: Mc Cain would not be sending in more troops into Afghanistan.
On the military in general Obama has promised to cut military spending while he is going to replace the used equipment and increase the amount of troops in the service. How is that even possible?
How do you have a progressive mainstream administration while furthering entrenching one self into the military industrial complex, Wall Street Finical Complex, Big Agro, Health Care Insurance Industry and the Free Trade crowd?
Regarding someone who have "built a massive grass roots movement, and displayed and extraordinary level of focus and discipline". That is nothing but good speaking skills, and using vague generalizations like HOPE and CHANGE to excite people. It is all about a candidates policies, not what they can say to whip up a crowd. Let remember that it is still 'anybody but Bush' and McCain is being painted as Bush. In in reality the differences are going to do nothing to create a better living condition for the working class.
Why is it going to be one of these two people who are going to be elected president? Because the majority of the US people are fooled into think that is all the choice they have. And by voting for one or the other when you may find someone who better represents your views, is falling into the same trap.
JUST LIKE CLINTON, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY BE DISAPPOINTED AFTER YOU SEE WHAT A OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO DO TO THIS COUNTRY. IF McCAIN MAGICALLY STEALS THE ELECTIONS, IT WON'T BE MUCH DIFFERENT, YOU WILL FEEL LIKE YOU CAN BLAME THE OTHER GUY. WHEN IN REALITY IT WILL BE THE SAME . THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU MOST LIKELY BELIEVE OBAMA IS ON YOUR TEAM.
HOW CAN ANYBODY WHO IS ABLE TO RAISE THAT MUCH MONEY BE SOMEONE WHO WILL LOOKS OUT FOR YOUR INTEREST?
i'm not talking the small donations, I'm talking the big money
""JUST LIKE CLINTON, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY BE DISAPPOINTED AFTER YOU SEE WHAT A OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO DO TO THIS COUNTRY. IF McCAIN MAGICALLY STEALS THE ELECTIONS, IT WON'T BE MUCH DIFFERENT""
Compare the years Clinton was in office with the past 8 years with George Bush and then you fucking tell me there is no fucking difference.
I'm sorry but I gotta say you are way off man. WAY OFF. Not everyone has the same interests as you and the presidents gotta please EVERYONE...how can you do that without some trade offs somewhere???
And yeah McCain won't send troops to Afghanistan WHERE THEY ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED, but he will INCREASE them in Iraq WHERE THEY DONT NEED TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
and yeah you can vote third party blah blah blah but FACE THE REALITY...it is a waste of your vote. A vote for a liberal third party will always help the republicans just like a vote for a conservative third party will always help democrats. And this will not ever change unless there is a massive overhaul of the whole system.
THIS IS POLITICS PEOPLE. its just how they fucking work right now. you gots ta play da game
A concerned citizenry that looks out for it best interest. A citizenry that is truly education on political matters. To be truly educated is never achievable. It is a lifetime commitment to a process of continuously figuring out what is going on and why, how it affect you, your family friend, neighbors, your country and the world. This only happens when one constantly stay vigilant and open minded.
Sexy.... you are going to have to realize that there are groups and interests far more powerful than the president.
Not for one second do I believe that even IF nader gets voted in (I agree with all of his policies so far that I've heard) would he be able to change a damn thing.
So yes, I get it.... if people vote for nader and spoil obama like gore was spoiled it will send a message.... did it really send a message when nader derailed gore? Did anyone get the message? Nope. There are so many money interests, religious groups, and what not that determine policy...
And I was making way more money during the clinton era.
I don't buy the vote third party is a wasted vote business. Especially with the load of crap electoral college system we have, it's pretty easy to vote third party with out it supporting your least favorite if you are smart about it. What is a waste is the people who don't vote at all because they're sick of the system.
Increasingly more people are not democrat or republican, in fact in a few states the number of people registered independent is now larger than either main party. Appealing to the independent voter has become an essential aspect of winning elections for the main parties, and the more third parties pick them up, the more pressure it places on the main parties to acknowledge those issues. As long as we keep third parties off the air and at less then 5% following, people will never realistically hear about these alternative options, keeping them in a catch 22.
To truly revive our democracy we must reform the foundation of our core democratic act, the act of voting it self. With alternative voting systems like run off voting that have been successfully used aboard and in some local elections in the US, we can get rid of that whole vote based on your fear dilemma. We need democracy 2.0, and falling in line with the status quo isn't going to make that happen. The DNC and GOP will fight tooth and nail to make sure they are the only game in town.
If this were a swing state I might be talking a little differently, but ultimately votes in CA mean very little even in their effect on the presidential election even though we are a big piece of the pie.
Turning away from national stuff for a moment, as always I want to remind people to read up on the local propositions, which can have a significant impact on our lives, our infrastructure and our civil liberties. In the case of our California Prop 8, we have a state measure that is attracting money all over the country and even the world from religious groups to try and keep CA from becoming a trend setter on gay rights. One fear mongering religious leader went so far as to say the outcome of Prop 8 is more important than the presidential election, which immediately generated millions of dollars for the yes on 8 campaign from all over the country.
I do realize there are groups and interest far more powerful then the president. Those are the groups and interest Obama and McCain are answering to.
If Nader or some other candidate beside the mainstream media/ global corporation candidates did get elected, things would change dramatically. Why, because you would have huge shift of thinking in the country. If the majority of the country came to realize that candidate was the best thing for their own interest, then things would have to change, people would have woken up. They would know much more then what the majority in this country knows, and demand things to be different. Be it a Nader, a Paul, a McKinney or a Libertarian.
That whole vote spoiler label is a misnomer. People who voted for Nader supported his policy and wanted that type of administration for the White House. They didn't do it out of protest, they knew that the there might have been a possible lose to Bush, but they decided to vote for who they wanted, not against who they where afraid of. I find this to be a dead agrugement. From my personnel experience, if someone claim that Nader throw the election for Bush then there is no way that person will listen to anything different.
The biggest problem with this way of thinking, is that it ignores the culprit to why Bush became president. It was the voter purging, and fraud that caused Bush to be called the winner in Florida. Because voter caging and election fraud was ignored, the same thing happened in Ohio and New Mexico in 2004 with the Kerry campaign.
The problem with ignoring that in 2004 is that this is the same thing that can happen with Obama in 2008. The man should win with a landslide victory (judging his popularity). The shenanigans are happening right now as we speak. Peoples votes being flipped in early elections in the south. 20% of the voters removed in Colorado. The fight for paper ballots in Ohio in case the fraudulent voting machine break down again in minority neighborhoods. More voter caging and voter removal. The good news is, that if this happens this time, I think it will be the last time it ever happens, the people will learn why someone so popular didn't win the election and will never allow it to happen again.
Remember that a recession was looming toward the end of the Clinton administration. Remember who was in charge of the Fed since 1987, Greenspan. That mans decision had major consequences on our economy. He has been taking our economy it to it's unregulated doom since his first appointment. With the global digital workforce, let take labor "where ever it is cheapest". Do you not think there is more people in other parts of the world who can do the same thing you do at a lower price? Does not moving the majority of our manufacturing to cheaper markets not lower employment opportunities, so that there is more people to compete for the same work. It was Clinton who allowed the changes in foreign trade to decrease employment in the USA.
The biggest problem with this way of thinking, is that it ignores the culprit to why Bush became president. It was the voter purging, and fraud that caused Bush to be called the winner in Florida. Because voter caging and election fraud was ignored, the same thing happened in Ohio and New Mexico in 2004 with the Kerry campaign.
The problem with ignoring that in 2004 is that this is the same thing that can happen with Obama in 2008
I agree 100% Sexy ... the absurdity of the Democrats blaming Ralph Nader for losing in Florida when there was enough GOP vote-stealing shenanigans that Gore could have won the race 20 times over.
Obama is the first candidate in the 21st Century to actually confront and deal with this. And mark my words ... not that I think it will be that close; Obama will not lay down and accept a stolen election. It's impossible for them to get away with that shit this time.
Not that they haven't been trying.
Once again. Who is going to be more likely to reform the voting system. McCain? Who, has given a wink and a nod to and a little pat on the butt to all the GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters? Or Obama?
It's against the interest of the Republicans to enfranchise the maximum # of voters, because when everybody votes they lose.
With Russia? A defunct country wielding rusty 30 year old AK-47s wavering between the 2nd and 3 worlds?
With China?
Are you fucking crazy?
Where would we get our:
shoes
toys
bikes
clothes
kitchen wear
appliances
plastic goods
etc.
Fighting China would be suicide
the first time a bunch of Americans stumble into a 99¢ store with empty shelves America would have a real revolution on their hands.
You can start wars, take away rights, and fuck the economy ...
But if you take away our 99¢ items shit is gonna go down!
Once again. Who is going to be more likely to reform the voting system. McCain? Who, has given a wink and a nod to and a little pat on the butt to all the GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters? Or Obama?
I have to say I respect your feeling that he would do something. I don't see that happening unless, the Democratic party gives him the ok (without fear of being called a Sore Loserman) to make a stink about the unfair election practices. Only time will tell. I do think the Dems feel it is a liability to bringing this issue up, or else they would be making more noise about it.
In regards to campaign finances, Obama dropped out of the public finance system. I don't blame him for his strategy, but how can you ever change this plutocratic system by taking money (which the favor will have to be repaid) from those same powers that are creating wealth inequality and compromising democracy for their own interest by the act of paying for the politicians? He has already allied himself and his campaign position with those who have given huge campaign contribution. This will in itself hamper the reform and change rhetoric that he speaks of.
I don't see Obama pushing to break up the Presidential Commission on Debates to allow 3rd parties into the debate come 2012. This will only hinder his chance of re-elections. Again it wouldn't be in his interest, but it will not create any reform in the election system.
I do respect your positive outlook for his presidency. I bring these points up to try to bring the realization that he is going to be more of the same. The system won't change unless it happens from the grass roots. By supporting someone who doesn't act to make the change actually happen, that person hinders the process of reform ever happening. Great personality and speeches doesn't make a campaign's platform for what they are going to do. The platform itself, and whom they align themselves with does. If Obama would have stood behind his Reverend's words, I would say we have hope with this man. His Rev had made the most sense of anybody he has aligned himself with. Instead he rejected the mans wisdom and smarts and aligned himself with Wall Street types, Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinskii. He rejected truth and embraced people who are responsible: for financial crises, lowering the standard of living for the working class in the US and aboard, death, mayhem ,and murder (all in the best interest of the United States of course)
RAND Corporation doesn't think it's so crazy.. in fact, they recently presented a proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.
these are insane people were talking about; attempting to be rational when analyzing their actions and attempting to predict what they will do next is just another method of ensuring your head will remain in the sand..
sexy there is just no system in the world that's perfect. especially for 300 million people.... and money is always going to be an influence. if it isnt money its resources and then religion and they are all intertwined. all you can do is put a more intelligent man in office who in the back of his mind knows whats up and will do things to lean in the direction that most people want. nader was a spoiler for the 2000 presidency. yes. shennanigans were pulled and bush fucking cheated and caused probably a million deaths in the world. he should be hung for treason. but shennaigns are possible in CLOSE elections. and it was close because of nader.
if we really want a more fairer system we're going to have to lobby the media to include all presidential candidates right up to the election. nader should have been part of the debates and so should have mkinney. I guess it would mean lowering the threashold for what the definition is of "major parties" to include the libertarians and green party and so forth. that our system is a two party system is BULLSHIT. in fact as chomsky says it is a one party system - the capitalist party- with two factions. we need more representation for other political parties and to stop listening to "commentators" and "news analysts" I want raw news. I want cspan.
I agree with sexy, Obama , though his policies may be more to my liking then McCain, isn't going to lift a finger for voter reform. It's not in the interest of the democrats or republicans to open up elections to be more democratic. It's a duopoly, and since they are the ones in power, they aren't going to vote to break up their own stranglehold of power. Ever since Perot, the commission on presidential debates has been steadily raising the bar of admission to exclude alternative voices. Since the debate is the most effective way to raise the profile of an alternative voice, third parties are stuck in a catch 22, which is right where the two main parties want them.
Our winner takes all style of electing our representatives also effectively keeps third parties from making any kind of head way into congress either. The only way we are going to get real voter reform is if more and more citizens demand alternative voices, and a vote for a third party or independent candidate is one component of voicing that demand.
I'm not necessarily saying hey everyone lets all vote for Nader, but I'm tired of hearing the message that any vote that deviates from the two party system of mediocrity is somehow a waste.
"In regards to campaign finances, Obama dropped out of the public finance system. I don't blame him for his strategy,"
the public finance system is bogus. mc cain and obama both used a loophole in mc cains own "reform" law that allowed the both of them to raise money unevenly.
before we can have 3rd parties in the debates, we need an instant runoff system ... so people can vote with their brains AND their conscience.
I don't know if there is any real talk of instant runoff ... but thats what we need.
As far as working against disenfranchisement.
Obama has already done way more than Gore and Kerry put together.
Those guys showed up alone to a street fight wearing boxing gloves and silky shorts.
Obama has been pushing back against every dirty trick and shining a light on attempts to disenfranchise voters.
Obama has also smartly worked toward a bulletproof lead so their petty tricks won't be enough to tip the balance.
Obama was smart to skip out on public financing.
The system is total shit. And he knew that he'd be dependent on PACs to get his message out if he went that way. Instead he has taken millions in $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100 donations from normal people moved by his message and fed up with the current bullshit.
We don't need curbs on the small donations of normal Americans, but on the MASSIVE influence of big lobbies and corporations.
A vote for Obama is only a vote for a "better" direction. He will likely be appointing a liberal or lefty in any open Supreme Court seats, because those are some OLD fucks in the Supreme Court that are going to retire or die soon. It's currently Conservative or Rightwing heavy.
For that reason alone is the only reason I would consider a Obama vote. Obama, as a leader/politician is just as bad as the other guy. Fuck the other guy, that's for sure - especially Palin. Obama's policies, and the folks he's likely to appoint to his cabinets are all career politicians with special interest groups in their pockets. So, yeah. We're fucked, no matter what.
I'm more of a Han Solo mercenary type. But I first need to win a space-freighter or something cool to get myself around in (since my Nishiki frame is a little too tall).
I kept my promise and volunteered at the obama call bank today for 4 hours of cold calls. I was getting into a rythim and finding a way to sound courteous about basically a telemarketing call style situation. Surprisingly Only a couple people straight hung up on me. A few people were very thankful that I called them and was able to offer information on how to get to their polling station.
I apologized to people who were pissed to get a call. The majority of calls were answering machines on which I left a message.
I called another lady back because she was concerned that her niece was not goi g to be able to vote. I gave her a number in her state to call. Florida.
that's cool! my mom has been doing that for a few weeks now, too. I'm sooooo excited for Tuesday!!!!!!!!!!! I missed the '04 election by one month but I think it's cool that after 250 years of white old fogies, in my FIRST presidential election I get to vote for an african american. Fuckin cool.
Hey Roadblock,
do you know if they have one or two hours shifts at the call centers, or do you have to stay for four? I'd really love to go but I cant trade 4 hours of studying to make calls right now...
Hell yes just go down there anytime between the hours they are open. Its all about grinding through lists of people and figuring out a way to hype them up to vote.
It was encouraging to find people that actually appreciated the call. I called florida and north carolina.
I believe that Barack Obama understands in his heart exactly what the problems of our society are. He knows the real deal. HOWEVER, no one who observes the rules of power comes in with sudden drastic changes. Obama is likely going to be president and I trust him to eventually whittle away the system. That's my idealistic mind at work.
I just came back from working at the local Obama call center. At the one where I worked, they would like you to put in a four hours shift but if you couldn't, it was no biggie.
I called one woman who only spoke Spanish. The volunteer sitting next to me spoke fluent Spanish so I let her talk to the woman instead. I found out the voter had been told she couldn't vote unless she had a special card. Apparently, it's a way the Repubs have of discouraging non-English speaking people to vote. The Spanish speaking volunteer told her what to do to vote. That call alone made it all worthwhile volunteering.
Today was my first time volunteering and I want to thank Sarah Palin for inspiring me. After her speech this morning, I was so pissed that I felt I just had to go do something about it.
Awesome story Mk..... hell yeah. I'm gonna go back today and just put in work. Gonna do it around 1ish at the gower studios call bank if anyone wants to join. Gower and sunset studios. Enter on the gordon st. side of the lot. The guard will tell you where to go.
I just spent the evening working at the call center and our message still remains -- don't get complacent. Make sure you vote tomorrow if you haven't done so and bring other voters with you.
After seeing the intensity of other volunteers, I see that this is what community organizing is about. I believe the strong grass roots support at the community level and a well organized network of supporters has set a precedent as far as election organizing. Now I think I know why the Republicans have bad-mouthed community organizers. They weren't able to match it. Do you realize that California call centers placed over 1.3 million phone calls today?
Talk about 'wrong team'? What about the "Democrats for McCain" folks back east who are trying to get other Dems to vote for McCain since they were pissed that Hillary didn't get the nom.
Now those folks are really gonna be left out. They'll have no one to turn to too.
I heard that on -the only radio show that matters- this american life this weekend. How bizarre. But then again scary. Its not about hillary. These dems are just closet racists coming out of the closet right quick.
Last night was ecstatic. Party at the century plaza hyatt. I was about 20 feet away from the podium right in line of site of the camera for the jumbotrons. So of course you could see my tall ass making epic lewls and shadow puppets from time to time.
People were so happy at the Hyatt. It was so on. The may as well have been handing out free Gold Cougarands. Wow. The world is happy. Seriously. Think about the mass of people who showed up to see him speak in Berlin. Wow. The world loves this man.
What I love is how serious president - elect Obama's acceptance speech was. He didn't even really celebrate. I get the feeling he is very determined to do some good and means it. I don't feel like he has promised anything he can't deliver..... fuck.... so I guess I gotta stay in the US after all.
I love how he set the tone for people to get out an vote the night before. Telling people they were in for a long day of waiting in lines. He got everyone all fired up. The turnout was the highest since 1908. And McShame got aired out like an old stale fart.
The only bummer is that now Palin is going to obscurity. Which means less entertainment on youtube. Serious bummer. She is such a ditz she named her son "Van" because her and Todd's favorite band growing up (props) is Van Halen and wouldn't it be funnif their son's name rimed... oh brother.... but I digress.
So we will see how it all goes down. I keep forgetting that there are still a bunch of the same politicians surrounding the presidency.
i made the above photoshop image as my fantasy of rednecks supporting obama.
little could i imagine that reality would once again trump art (see attached image) with the delightful discovery of this "obama rebel" flag that my friend just found in Hot Springs, AK (where Billy Clinton grew up).
proving once again that the usa is indeed a very special place and that reality is very fucking weird.
Hopey-Changey, that's the way
To see another sunny day.
How sad to see that some don't feel
Much love for this, The Old New Deal.
Some people think it kind of sucks,
Just living off of borrowed bucks.
But BHO knows more than that,
'Cause credit cards are where it's at.
Live for now, pay whenever
With anything, anyhow, whatsoever.
We all know that that's the plan
For funding Project Yes We Can.
Two raging wars, both still not won.
Isn't Hopey-Changey fun???
Do not give in to dark dispair.
Do not befoul your underwear.
Into these wounds do not rub salt.
Remember, please, it's Bush's fault.
Change takes time, and so does hope,
So just sit back, and smoke some dope.
but seriously,
for those that oppose the having the government having an active hand in shaping the economy I 1000% respect and support that view. I don't know how feasible it is in practice but I do respect the philosophy of people power and limited government.
What I 1000% do not support is people who are fine with government doing deficit spending for illegal wars, but do not support it for rebuilding roads and schools.
People who want government out of the business of corporations who pollute our and exploit our people. But think that government should be in the business of dictating "moral" behavior to gays, dope smokers, or unwed mothers.
Its easy to criticize Obama for following the broken course of every other modern president.
What I don't accept is people painting this as some sort of horrible Armageddon.
My grandma gets all her news from her friend who watches Glenn Beck and she is convinced that Obama is a Muslim without a birth certificate that is dead set on destroying america. And what is scary is that those views represent about 30% of the US population. Boo. (that was a Halloween reference)
trickmilla responding to a comment by GodLovesUgly
10.25.10 - 1:07 pm
Wars, roads......that nothing compared to giving the F-I-RE industry $12 trillion within a year to continue to extract the wealth of the nation. At the very least with wars it to help keep our dollar the dominate and strong currency. If you have any amounts of US dollars to spend, US wars effect you in a positive way. Wrong way to go about it, but that the US policy.
This would have happened if it was McCain or Obama or Bush or your mama. I
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
democrats are the new republicans; republicans are still the old republicans. they are all republicans..
I'd like to see a candidate speak about repealing the military commissions act, patriot act, no child left behind, restoring habeas corpus, transferring power from the executive branch back to congress and the judicial branch, and preventing hr1955 from passing. would also like to see the candidates that already hold office do their jobs, hold the bush admin accountable and establish nuremberg-style war crimes trials.
Mr. Hungerford,
"Like take fuck face Clinton for instance. She keeps says "We need someone who will be ready on day one!" As if that doesn't apply to anyone who is elected. What kind of physcobabble is she being fed for her to actually believe that that will actually resonate with people. Its the small shit like that that makes me want to absolutely puke all over myself and bathe in it."
I heard it this morning.
......Here's the picture.
Time and time again I've warned of the evils of democracy. Repent or there will be tyranny for all!
now go see if you can read about evil col momar kadafi. He really nationalized all those things you can make money off of. Bad Boy
@Sexy ... its clear that the Daily Show bit is included in that video is for comic relief and is included to highlight what is happening in the legitimate news stories.
??
I only vote in the voting booth, never with my mouth. that would be uncuth, especially while on a bike. do i get another beer Marino? I never collected my beer from the last election
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/obama-celebrates-win-by-r_n_106010.html
nevermind.. got it (urban dictionary) hehe heres another pic. i love obama even though he looks super goofy in these pics
why obama will not be our next president:
PHOTOSHOP NAO!
OBAMAMMOTH
mccains talking points
Woah... So they were right?
trickay mista milla
srsly.
you GO matt damon! she's a disgrace to women.
Wake up America the two party dictatorships is control by the major corporations. Barack Obama is a pawn. Never ever support a candidate base on what he says, they have lied and will lied again. Just look at Obama's record in congress voted for the national ID card, Patriot Act, FISA bill, and continues to fund the war in Iraq. These entire votes were against the constitution, and the people. He will not end the failed war on drugs, or cut spending. He wants to invade Iran a nation that has no air force, navy and is no threat to the national security of the United States. The republican puppet well his pretty much George Bush the III. So are we screwed people perhaps, however we can vote for a third party candidate. One recommendation Cynthia McKinney running for the green party, do not take my word for it, I am not a television reporter. Remember when you vote for the lesser of two evils your still voting for evil. 
what me worry?
A vote for Obama is only a vote for a "better" direction. He will likely be appointing a liberal or lefty in any open Supreme Court seats, because those are some OLD fucks in the Supreme Court that are going to retire or die soon. It's currently Conservative or Rightwing heavy.
