190 replies to this topic

[inawe]

Nice try. Obama listened to this guy wright for 20 years, followed his advised, considered him his spiritual mentor and gave him a prominent role in his campaign. When it became public what kind of person Wright was, Obama tried to put some distance and gave a few lame excuses.
Now, more creative people are proposing that Obama was right all along; Wright is just like Martin L. King (MLK). OK, let's take a closer look. Listen again to Wright's sermons. They are vitriolic and appealing to the worse instinct of his congregation, inciting to violence. And they are clearly racists. Blaming the "white" government for propagating aids among blacks and distributing cocaine.
Let's now revisit the MLK legacy. Being a preacher for mainly poor and segregated people he felt the need to help them. He saw that segregation had to be fought nationwide. He organized marches walking at the front. He confronted authorities and bigots putting his life on the line.
He saw that segregation by color wasn't the only problem. Economic exploitation was as big of an injustice. So he started calling for more equality in all aspects. Not only in the US but in the world at large.
Was during MLK transition from a Black civil rights advocate, to a full fledge anti-militaristic socialist, that he was assassinated. We don't have anybody with the vision and guts of MLK at present.
So obama handlers: Don't even think of running the Wright-MLK comparison. Don't equate "I have a dream" with "I have a nightmare". It will backfire.

I agree that Wright is nowhere near as honorable as MLK, and I doubt anyone thinks he is. At the same time, the particular sound bite that was circulated endlessly by the Right isn't wrong. I remember FOX news presented it by saying "Wright suggested that 9/11 was payback for US foreign policy." This is not radical at all... in fact, it is what Osama Bin Laden constantly says in his little videos. I suppose you could argue that Bin Laden was lying to us in his explanation for why he attacked us, but it would be a moronic argument.

It was simply the tone and language that Wright used which borders on demagoguery, and wasn't something that is likely to bring people together in the spirit of MLK. Of course getting angry isn't a crime, and since after mining through every sermon he ever preached, that was the best they could do, I am not impressed. I haven't seen Wright actually say anything about AIDS, but if he did it would be pretty obnoxious. At the same time, I have heard much more obnoxious things from McCain and his Republican friends.

This is a non-issue. We should talk about serious things.

Well, I was going to ignore it. Then, since it was a reply to a post
of mine, I decided to reply back.

After discussing it for 2 paragraph in a completely incoherent manner,
you state "This is a non-issue. We should talk about serious things."
If you think a post is a non-issue and not serious, then don't reply.
I would have thought that was obvious for anybody with any brains.

In my post I was reminding posters that MLK was not only a leader of
the civil rights for Blacks movement, but also an advocate for more
equality for all people. I thought that trying to rescue Wright (and
Obama) using the memory of MLK was an outrage.

This is not serious? You wouldn't know what serious is if it bites you in the ass.

[missminni]

OMG! Rev. WRight. what a hoot. I am loving this man. But god knows he is not
doing Obama any good at all and it seems that might just be his intent. This is rich. Male ego. screws up every
time.
THAT'S why we need Hillary. We need woman energy. C'mon guys. give the girls a chance. We can do it.
My co-op did and we went from rags to riches in one year.
I know a lot of you hate her, but she's smart, tough and able
and now that WRight has made sure Obama doesn't have a chance of a snowball in hell, what choice do you have?
I knew this was going to happen, but I never thought it would come from his own camp. His "uncle" and "spiritual mentor"
no less, a term Wright mocked heartlessly, OMG, and then offered himself up for vice president. whoa. And lets not forget
the singing, very impressive, and the dancing, the impersonations of JFK and Johnson. I love this guy. He is so damn
entertaining, and I do share his POV. But this is not so with most white america. He is their worst nightmare.
An arrogant Black Man without fear. Whoops.
But one thing for sure, he's ended Obama's chances in the general and probably
the primary election as well.
one can only imagine the super delegate frenzy at this moment.
If the first time Wright gaffe didn't kill Obama's electability, this one
certainly will. That I would bet on. Especially since it's from the right reverend himself.

Edited by missminni, 29 April 2008 - 06:47 PM.

[mike250]

OMG! Rev. WRight. what a hoot. I am loving this man. But god knows he is not
doing Obama any good at all and it seems that might just be his intent. This is rich. Male ego. screws up every
time.
THAT'S why we need Hillary. We need woman energy. C'mon guys. give the girls a chance. We can do it.
My co-op did and we went from rags to riches in one year.
I know a lot of you hate her, but she's one smart
cookie and now that WRight has made sure Obama doesn't have a chance of a snowball in hell, what choice do you have?
I knew this was going to happen, but I never thought it would come from his own camp. His "uncle" and "spiritual mentor"
no less, a term Wright mocked heartlessly, OMG, and then offered himself up for vice president. whoa. And lets not forget
the singing, very impressive, and the dancing, the impersonations of JFK and Johnson. I love this guy. He is so damn
entertaining, and I see things the way he does too. But this is not something most white americans
can identify with.
But one thing for sure, he's ended Obama's chances in the general and probably
the primnary election as well.
one can only imagine the super delegate frenzy this is causing.
If the first Rev. Wright gaffe didn't kill his electability, this one
certainly has. That I would bet on. Especially since it's from the right reverend himself.

So get behind the Lady. Give mommy a chance.

she has a history of doing/saying the "politically correct" thing to benefit her personal image, which changes depending on the day. this reminds me of H.L. Mencken's deathless observation: "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

She has been wrong and essentially republican on key issues like the war, torture, the god-awful bankruptcy bill of 2001, the patriot Act, the Kyle-Lieberman bill, etc...She claims today that she's all for unions but for six years, she never did a thing to stop Wal-Mart's import of goods from child labor factories in China.

when she did step out of her traditional ribbon cutting role as First lady she created a commission and held private meetings, not public hearings. The message from Hillary was, "I know what's good for you, and when we're ready, we'll tell you what we're going to do (and you'll pay for it)." The uproar ended her grand plans and while I do give her credit for this, she wasted the opportunity for perhaps meaningful health care reform.

Edited by mike250, 29 April 2008 - 07:08 PM.

[missminni]

OMG! Rev. WRight. what a hoot. I am loving this man. But god knows he is not
doing Obama any good at all and it seems that might just be his intent. This is rich. Male ego. screws up every
time.
THAT'S why we need Hillary. We need woman energy. C'mon guys. give the girls a chance. We can do it.
My co-op did and we went from rags to riches in one year.
I know a lot of you hate her, but she's one smart
cookie and now that WRight has made sure Obama doesn't have a chance of a snowball in hell, what choice do you have?
I knew this was going to happen, but I never thought it would come from his own camp. His "uncle" and "spiritual mentor"
no less, a term Wright mocked heartlessly, OMG, and then offered himself up for vice president. whoa. And lets not forget
the singing, very impressive, and the dancing, the impersonations of JFK and Johnson. I love this guy. He is so damn
entertaining, and I see things the way he does too. But this is not something most white americans
can identify with.
But one thing for sure, he's ended Obama's chances in the general and probably
the primnary election as well.
one can only imagine the super delegate frenzy this is causing.
If the first Rev. Wright gaffe didn't kill his electability, this one
certainly has. That I would bet on. Especially since it's from the right reverend himself.

So get behind the Lady. Give mommy a chance.

she has a history of doing/saying the "politically correct" thing to benefit her personal image, which changes depending on the day. this reminds me of H.L. Mencken's deathless observation: "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

She has been wrong and essentially republican on key issues like the war, torture, the god-awful bankruptcy bill of 2001, the patriot Act, the Kyle-Lieberman bill, etc...She claims today that she's all for unions but for six years, she never did a thing to stop Wal-Mart's import of goods from child labor factories in China.

when she did step out of her traditional ribbon cutting role as First lady she created a commission and held private meetings, not public hearings. The message from Hillary was, "I know what's good for you, and when we're ready, we'll tell you what we're going to do (and you'll pay for it)." The uproar ended her grand plans and while I do give her credit for this, she wasted the opportunity for perhaps meaningful health care reform.

so whats the option? McCain? Please. that guy gets scarier every time I see him. His wife too. My god.

[mike250]

OMG! Rev. WRight. what a hoot. I am loving this man. But god knows he is not
doing Obama any good at all and it seems that might just be his intent. This is rich. Male ego. screws up every
time.
THAT'S why we need Hillary. We need woman energy. C'mon guys. give the girls a chance. We can do it.
My co-op did and we went from rags to riches in one year.
I know a lot of you hate her, but she's one smart
cookie and now that WRight has made sure Obama doesn't have a chance of a snowball in hell, what choice do you have?
I knew this was going to happen, but I never thought it would come from his own camp. His "uncle" and "spiritual mentor"
no less, a term Wright mocked heartlessly, OMG, and then offered himself up for vice president. whoa. And lets not forget
the singing, very impressive, and the dancing, the impersonations of JFK and Johnson. I love this guy. He is so damn
entertaining, and I see things the way he does too. But this is not something most white americans
can identify with.
But one thing for sure, he's ended Obama's chances in the general and probably
the primnary election as well.
one can only imagine the super delegate frenzy this is causing.
If the first Rev. Wright gaffe didn't kill his electability, this one
certainly has. That I would bet on. Especially since it's from the right reverend himself.

So get behind the Lady. Give mommy a chance.

she has a history of doing/saying the "politically correct" thing to benefit her personal image, which changes depending on the day. this reminds me of H.L. Mencken's deathless observation: "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

She has been wrong and essentially republican on key issues like the war, torture, the god-awful bankruptcy bill of 2001, the patriot Act, the Kyle-Lieberman bill, etc...She claims today that she's all for unions but for six years, she never did a thing to stop Wal-Mart's import of goods from child labor factories in China.

when she did step out of her traditional ribbon cutting role as First lady she created a commission and held private meetings, not public hearings. The message from Hillary was, "I know what's good for you, and when we're ready, we'll tell you what we're going to do (and you'll pay for it)." The uproar ended her grand plans and while I do give her credit for this, she wasted the opportunity for perhaps meaningful health care reform.

so whats the option? McCain? Please. that guy gets scarier every time I see him. His wife too. My god.

He certainly isn't an option-- but I honestly don't think there is a good option--. I think I'm going to nominate myself and vote for myself. At least I won't be disillusioned with myself.

Edited by mike250, 29 April 2008 - 08:42 PM.

[niner]

What did Wright do that was so awful this time? I heard a couple snippets of his recent talk, and none of it seemed bad, but then today I heard that Obama was denouncing him.

I agree that McCain is a terrible option, but Hillary wants to bomb Iran too. One of my greatest fears is that over the next four or eight years, all of the Bush chickens are going to come home to roost. If a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans will blame the Democrats and remind us of it for the next fifty years. At least if McCain is president, the Republican party might finally be destroyed. I wonder if any Republicans are going to strategically vote for the Democrat for this very reason?

[niner]

What did Wright do that was so awful this time? I heard a couple snippets of his recent talk, and none of it seemed bad, but then today I heard that Obama was denouncing him.

And here it is in Black and White:

On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said.

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

Holy crap, what a whack-job. Now I see why missminni likes him so much... President Clinton? President McSame?

[missminni]

What did Wright do that was so awful this time? I heard a couple snippets of his recent talk, and none of it seemed bad, but then today I heard that Obama was denouncing him.

And here it is in Black and White:

On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said.

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

Holy crap, what a whack-job. Now I see why missminni likes him so much... President Clinton? President McSame?

Niner, you gotta see his speech in full at the NAACp meeting. 10,000 people and a standing ovation. He is quite the showman.
This man has a following. He's not a whack job. He's a pissed off ego tripping Mack Daddy whose going to show Obama who really has the power.
Evidently he doesn't think too highly of Obama distancing himself from him,
and said more than once that Obama just said he didn't agree with his views because
he is running for president and has to say it if he wants to get elected. He is most definitely trying to ruin his chances and although I heard
some people in the black community tried to talk him out of it, he could not be derailed. A lot of people think the world of him long before
Obama ever entered the picture, and I am sure
this is going to play out even more as the week goes on. He doesn't seem to have too much respect for Obama. uh uh. Uncle Jeremiah is
bringing HIS chickens home to roost now.
I am quite sure that Hillary Clinton isn't exactly totally up front about her views either, and I know
she is more radical than she presents herself, but that's politics, and she is a pro at that.
But this jeremiah wright debacle shows that obama really isn't ready for prime time.
He should have had this mess figured out long before now. He has bad planning and lousy judgement as far as I can see
so the only answer is Miss Hillary.
mcSame isn't even an option. He's losing his mind before our very eyes. anyway hillary is beating him in the polls but Obama isn't.
what a switch huh? Rev. Wright. oh my. what a spiritual mentor he be, and what a lesson mr obama is learning at the expense of
his electability. AFAIC Mr Wright did us all a favor. He just came out and spoke the unspeakable truth. C'mon...you don't think
obama heard any his those sermons before? Everybody else did. That's what Wright is known for. Obama is lying just like every other lying politician out there, miss hillary included. Obama used Wright and his church as a jumping off point but
forgot to figure out what the hell he was going to do with Wright after he jumped off. Bad planning and terrible judgement.
Not presidential material yet. Maybe never. Boy is Richardson looking like a screw faced looser now after saying he picked Obama
because he couldn't stand the "Clintons thinking they were entitled to the throne". What a jerk for even saying that. Just say you like Obama, fool.
They must all be crapping in their pants now, knowing they are going to have to deal with the wrath of the scorned. Oh sweet revenge, right on time. Sorry. I'm loving it. Hail to the Queen.

[missminni]

I am quite sure that Hillary Clinton isn't exactly totally up front about her views either, and I know
she is more radical than she presents herself, but that's politics, and she is a pro at that.

Yes, we need a candidate who is best able to mislead the American people as to the true nature of their political agenda.

Please. Every politician has an agenda that is by and far unknown to his constituents. A personal agenda
and a political agenda. Case in fact the last eight years of hell were Bush and Cheney's personal agenda that served them and their
"have mores". Hillary will have one that serves the working class and the need mores. Is there something wrong with that?
Obama has no history. 12 years in political arena does not a president make. Charisma only goes so far without brains. He's just
not as smart as he or you thinks he is. Hillary is vetted. We know her and her abilities. We only know what Obama tells us he
is going to do in very grand rhetoric with zero details. His political history is short and dull.
And for him to have called Rev. Wright his spiritual mentor for 20 years
proves just how ignorant he really is and what a liar he really be. You really don't believe he never heard Wrights fiery sermons, do you?
Please. It's what the man is famous for. I am quite sure they will come up with proof that he has. I'm sick of this pandering to Obama
no matter how much he screws up. Like the reverend said, Obama is a politician, nothing more nothing less. Personally, I don't trust him.
People are so shallow to be moved by good looks and speaking skills with nothing more to go on. Oh, wait, they have the example
of who he called his spiritual mentor for half his life to judge him by. This is not about race, it's about stupid.

[inawe]

We are in a bind. If we don't vote for Obama we are racists. If we don't vote for Hillary we are misogynist. If we don't vote for McCain we are elderly haters.
On the positive side, the achievements of Jeremiah Wright are being recognized. He's being hired by the Fox channels for an 8-hour daily show.

[niner]

In any case, I'm starting to see that perhaps you and niner, and by extension Obama and Clinton, deserve each other.

Perhaps, but what did we do to deserve you? So, Jeremiah Wright, a classic race man, manages to derail the possible election of the first Black man to the presidency. I wonder what the average Black man on the street will make of this? I hope Hillary wins a ton of delegates between now and the end of the primary, because if she has a lot fewer delegates than Obama, but the Superdelegates put her over the top, a lot of Black people will be angry about it.

So whoopee. We can have another four years of the same vitriol and argumentation. The Right can continue their vilification of Clinton, or maybe McSame will win, and our position in the world can continue to crater. Maybe if McCain wins, a miracle will happen and he will tell the far right nincompoops to go F themselves and actually try cleaning up the mess they've made of our country. Good luck with that, John.

[missminni]

Please. Every politician has an agenda that is by and far unknown to his constituents. A personal agenda and a political agenda. Case in fact the last eight years of hell were Bush and Cheney's personal agenda that served them and their
"have mores". Hillary will have one that serves the working class and the need mores. Is there something wrong with that?

If such an agenda, no matter how laudable, requires, as you seem to imply, some level of deception of the electorate, then yes there is something wrong with that. And even if it is the case that all politicians do it, it doesn't mean that we as citizens should feel o.k. about it, or - even worse - praise a candidate for their aptitude carrying out such deception. We should never feel o.k. with the infantilization of U.S. citizens by politicians, even when it is perceived that what they are doing is for "our own good."

Charisma only goes so far without brains. He's just not as smart as he or you thinks he is.

Hmm, I suspect that your fixation on installing the Queen has possibly impaired your memory and/or reading abilities. In any case, I'm starting to see that perhaps you and niner, and by extension Obama and Clinton, deserve each other.

I totally agree with you, but that is unfortunately the way it is and has been, and is encouraged to be for generations.
My point was only that Obama was not above it. In fact he is very good at it. I don't have a fixation on installing a Queen....that was a joke.
I just see the writing on the wall.

[EmbraceUnity]

So whoopee. We can have another four years of the same vitriol and argumentation. The Right can continue their vilification of Clinton, or maybe McSame will win, and our position in the world can continue to crater. Maybe if McCain wins, a miracle will happen and he will tell the far right nincompoops to go F themselves and actually try cleaning up the mess they've made of our country. Good luck with that, John.

Our position in the world will crater under any event, but it seems from my vantage point that it would crater more slowly under Obama. However, I do not care one iota about the US's "position in the world" if it does not help the primary goal of social justice worldwide. As a result of the structure of our political system, we typically elect leaders who cater to the interests of concentrated wealth such as the Military-Industrial Complex and our corporate mass media presents this system that violates our common sense as legitimate.

The imperialist activities of the United States which have secured its "position in the world" do so in the same manner as the Mob. These activities fit our own legal definition of terrorism, and thus make the US the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Since this position in the world is merely a function of such terrorism, I cannot in good conscience root for a furtherance of that position.

I agree that McCain is a terrible option, but Hillary wants to bomb Iran too. One of my greatest fears is that over the next four or eight years, all of the Bush chickens are going to come home to roost. If a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans will blame the Democrats and remind us of it for the next fifty years. At least if McCain is president, the Republican party might finally be destroyed. I wonder if any Republicans are going to strategically vote for the Democrat for this very reason?

I am actually hoping the Democrats win, since it will become abundantly apparent that our problems are not one party or the other, but an inherent problem of our two-party system. Hopefully, in the best case scenario, this will lead to the collapse of that system and the creation of a real democracy. Spreading democracy starts at home.

[senseix]

So whoopee. We can have another four years of the same vitriol and argumentation. The Right can continue their vilification of Clinton, or maybe McSame will win, and our position in the world can continue to crater. Maybe if McCain wins, a miracle will happen and he will tell the far right nincompoops to go F themselves and actually try cleaning up the mess they've made of our country. Good luck with that, John.

Our position in the world will crater under any event, but it seems from my vantage point that it would crater more slowly under Obama. However, I do not care one iota about the US's "position in the world" if it does not help the primary goal of social justice worldwide. As a result of the structure of our political system, we typically elect leaders who cater to the interests of concentrated wealth such as the Military-Industrial Complex and our corporate mass media presents this system that violates our common sense as legitimate.

The imperialist activities of the United States which have secured its "position in the world" do so in the same manner as the Mob. These activities fit our own legal definition of terrorism, and thus make the US the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Since this position in the world is merely a function of such terrorism, I cannot in good conscience root for a furtherance of that position.

I agree that McCain is a terrible option, but Hillary wants to bomb Iran too. One of my greatest fears is that over the next four or eight years, all of the Bush chickens are going to come home to roost. If a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans will blame the Democrats and remind us of it for the next fifty years. At least if McCain is president, the Republican party might finally be destroyed. I wonder if any Republicans are going to strategically vote for the Democrat for this very reason?

I am actually hoping the Democrats win, since it will become abundantly apparent that our problems are not one party or the other, but an inherent problem of our two-party system. Hopefully, in the best case scenario, this will lead to the collapse of that system and the creation of a real democracy. Spreading democracy starts at home.

Yeah the two party system is mostly to blame, we need to open it up more.

[missminni]

Whats so fair about a real democracy? If the majority
rules that means the minority would always be at their mercy. That's the inherent contradicton of a democracy.
That's why we're a republic with an electoral college.
The interests of the minority must be protected too. The electoral college is the buffer.

[niner]

So whoopee. We can have another four years of the same vitriol and argumentation. The Right can continue their vilification of Clinton, or maybe McSame will win, and our position in the world can continue to crater. Maybe if McCain wins, a miracle will happen and he will tell the far right nincompoops to go F themselves and actually try cleaning up the mess they've made of our country. Good luck with that, John.

Our position in the world will crater under any event, but it seems from my vantage point that it would crater more slowly under Obama. However, I do not care one iota about the US's "position in the world" if it does not help the primary goal of social justice worldwide. As a result of the structure of our political system, we typically elect leaders who cater to the interests of concentrated wealth such as the Military-Industrial Complex and our corporate mass media presents this system that violates our common sense as legitimate.

The imperialist activities of the United States which have secured its "position in the world" do so in the same manner as the Mob. These activities fit our own legal definition of terrorism, and thus make the US the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Since this position in the world is merely a function of such terrorism, I cannot in good conscience root for a furtherance of that position.

That's not really the position I meant. People all over the world used to look up to America. America represented something good. This is not to say that we didn't do some things that were wrong, but overall America had a pretty good reputation. Now the number of people who dislike us is pretty staggering. They see a hostile, arrogant country that thinks it can make and break the rules at will.

I agree that McCain is a terrible option, but Hillary wants to bomb Iran too. One of my greatest fears is that over the next four or eight years, all of the Bush chickens are going to come home to roost. If a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans will blame the Democrats and remind us of it for the next fifty years. At least if McCain is president, the Republican party might finally be destroyed. I wonder if any Republicans are going to strategically vote for the Democrat for this very reason?

I am actually hoping the Democrats win, since it will become abundantly apparent that our problems are not one party or the other, but an inherent problem of our two-party system. Hopefully, in the best case scenario, this will lead to the collapse of that system and the creation of a real democracy. Spreading democracy starts at home.

How does the multi-party system work out in the countries where it's currently employed? Or were you thinking of something else? Are you thinking of a pure democracy, where all decisions and policy options are made by everyone? I think that would be a disaster.

[EmbraceUnity]

That's not really the position I meant. People all over the world used to look up to America. America represented something good. This is not to say that we didn't do some things that were wrong, but overall America had a pretty good reputation. Now the number of people who dislike us is pretty staggering. They see a hostile, arrogant country that thinks it can make and break the rules at will.

You are talking about the distinction between "hard" power and "soft" power. Hard power is military power, economic power, etc. Soft power is the intangible perceptions toward a nation with regard to the morality, legitimacy, etc. They are interrelated. One cannot effectively conduct hard power if one is lacking in soft power, and vice versa. That is why there is always so much talk about “winning hearts and minds” in addition to “shock and awe.” If people love you enough or fear you enough, you don't even really have to fight to get your way.

The aim is usually to change the power structure of the target to make their self-interest something that is tied to American interests, aka neoliberalism. Here is an interesting paper on the topic:

http://jwsr.ucr.edu/...wan-v10n2gs.pdf

How does the multi-party system work out in the countries where it's currently employed? Or were you thinking of something else? Are you thinking of a pure democracy, where all decisions and policy options are made by everyone? I think that would be a disaster.

I am ultimately a reformist, and think we need to make use of our current structure, which is that of a republic. However, we are not a legitimate republic because of many reasons: the disparity between public views and government policies, the dominance of the two parties, the lack of transparency, the money-driven politics, excessive executive power, etc.
The views of the two parties are virtually identical on substantive issues such as trade, foreign policy, regulation, social welfare, etc. The only hotly contested issues between them seem to be gay marriage and flag burning.
Yet, if you look at polls of the public you will find that their views are far out of synch with the politicians and corporate media on everything from public healthcare to trade relations with Cuba.
So while multi-party systems are flawed, they at least foster some of the debate that is needed to have a robust democracy. Beyond that, I am willing to consider ideas like referendums to further expand democracy as they become feasible.

[niner]

How does the multi-party system work out in the countries where it's currently employed? Or were you thinking of something else? Are you thinking of a pure democracy, where all decisions and policy options are made by everyone? I think that would be a disaster.

I am ultimately a reformist, and think we need to make use of our current structure, which is that of a republic. However, we are not a legitimate republic because of many reasons: the disparity between public views and government policies, the dominance of the two parties, the lack of transparency, the money-driven politics, excessive executive power, etc.
The views of the two parties are virtually identical on substantive issues such as trade, foreign policy, regulation, social welfare, etc. The only hotly contested issues between them seem to be gay marriage and flag burning.
Yet, if you look at polls of the public you will find that their views are far out of synch with the politicians and corporate media on everything from public healthcare to trade relations with Cuba.
So while multi-party systems are flawed, they at least foster some of the debate that is needed to have a robust democracy. Beyond that, I am willing to consider ideas like referendums to further expand democracy as they become feasible.

I just don't see how you can describe the views of the two parties on foreign policy and regulation as "virtually identical". I would call them "night and day". If Al Gore had been president in 2000, would we have invaded Iraq? That's a pretty big foreign policy difference. Would it have been party time for antiquated coal burners? Would Scalia be on the bench? You should check out the effect of referenda on the well-being of the state of California in the last 30 years. It's not pretty. While legislatures can be influenced by monied interests, an ignorant populace can be induced to do all manner of harmful things by a clever ad campaign.

[EmbraceUnity]

I just don't see how you can describe the views of the two parties on foreign policy and regulation as "virtually identical". I would call them "night and day". If Al Gore had been president in 2000, would we have invaded Iraq? That's a pretty big foreign policy difference. Would it have been party time for antiquated coal burners? Would Scalia be on the bench? You should check out the effect of referenda on the well-being of the state of California in the last 30 years. It's not pretty. While legislatures can be influenced by monied interests, an ignorant populace can be induced to do all manner of harmful things by a clever ad campaign.

I think it is safe to say that Al Gore's presidency would have looked a lot like that of Bill Clinton. Yet, wasn't it Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and deregulated everything from telecommunications to the financial sector? It was the lack of accountability and oversight which led to the subprime mortgage crisis and surely Clinton set bad precedents in that regard.

As for foreign policy, he continued the same sort of imperialist policies of any other politician. I think it is almost a certainty that Gore would have gone after Iraq considering the influence of K Street and PNAC going back into the 90s. Clinton launched missiles at Iraq and made it clear that the US sought “regime change.” Their preferred mode of accomplishing this was originally sanctions, but it turned out those policies were ineffective with regard to regime change and 9/11 afforded the US a great amount of soft power to reshape the world as we saw fit.

Considering the history of the American Empire, and the fact that it was the Democratic Party which was largely to blame for the strikingly similar Vietnam War, I can't imagine how anyone could have faith that they wouldn't have gone into Iraq or initiated an equivalent imperial conquest. Hillary Clinton actually voted for the freakin war... how much more evidence do you need? I admit Barack Obama at least signifies a notable shift in policy, but certainly nothing we have seen would indicate something vastly different.

The fact that the populace is systematically misinformed is inextricably linked to our political/economic institutional structure, and it is for that reason that I am not a big advocate for direct democratic measures in the short-term. Those are more of a long-term goal. If you want more background into how we are systematically misinformed, I already offered some good resources in another post.

[niner]

I just don't see how you can describe the views of the two parties on foreign policy and regulation as "virtually identical". I would call them "night and day". If Al Gore had been president in 2000, would we have invaded Iraq? That's a pretty big foreign policy difference. Would it have been party time for antiquated coal burners? Would Scalia be on the bench? You should check out the effect of referenda on the well-being of the state of California in the last 30 years. It's not pretty. While legislatures can be influenced by monied interests, an ignorant populace can be induced to do all manner of harmful things by a clever ad campaign.

I think it is safe to say that Al Gore's presidency would have looked a lot like that of Bill Clinton. Yet, wasn't it Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and deregulated everything from telecommunications to the financial sector? It was the lack of accountability and oversight which led to the subprime mortgage crisis and surely Clinton set bad precedents in that regard.

There was some deregulation under Clinton, but the truly damaging deregulation occurred under Republican control.
In 2000, Phill Gramm (R TX), tacked a rider onto a huge appropriations bill in 2000 that deregulated Credit Default Swaps and other derivative instruments. This was known as the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This act prevented regulation of the very derivatives that entail securitization of mortgages and other debt, and effectively removed financial discipline from the lending market. In addition to this, it was a key to Enron's abuse of the California energy market and ultimate demise. When competent State Attorneys General tried to take steps to reign in subprime lenders, Bush actively stopped them!

Clinton started the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a research consortium that was working on a hybrid car back in the 90's. Bush cancelled that useful program almost instantly, and replaced it with an oil-industry approved Hydrogen Economy red herring. In areas of environment and energy, the Clinton record is pretty good, while the Bush record is abominable. Gore wrote Earth in the Balance; Bush only grudgingly admitted that Global Warming was real at the end of his term.

As for foreign policy, he continued the same sort of imperialist policies of any other politician. I think it is almost a certainty that Gore would have gone after Iraq considering the influence of K Street and PNAC going back into the 90s. Clinton launched missiles at Iraq and made it clear that the US sought “regime change.” Their preferred mode of accomplishing this was originally sanctions, but it turned out those policies were ineffective with regard to regime change and 9/11 afforded the US a great amount of soft power to reshape the world as we saw fit.

Considering the history of the American Empire, and the fact that it was the Democratic Party which was largely to blame for the strikingly similar Vietnam War, I can't imagine how anyone could have faith that they wouldn't have gone into Iraq or initiated an equivalent imperial conquest. Hillary Clinton actually voted for the freakin war... how much more evidence do you need? I admit Barack Obama at least signifies a notable shift in policy, but certainly nothing we have seen would indicate something vastly different.

There is simply no way that Gore would have had us occupy Iraq. All the smart people knew that was nuts, and the PNAC Neocons were all Republicans. The K Street Project was strictly a Republican affair. The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq was a Republican doing as well. They were virtually unanimous in supporting it, such that the votes of the Democrats didn't matter. Hillary's vote in favor was a political stance intended to ensure her electability to higher office in an environment where the American people had been utterly misinformed. A majority of Democrats opposed the AUMF. While I can't condone Hillary's cowardly and unprincipled vote, you have to look at who was stovepiping intelligence and lying to everyone; they were not Democrats. I don't think that you can call LBJ's wretched behavior emblematic of today's Democrats any more than Abraham Lincoln represents today's Republicans. Those were different eras. If we turn away from foreign policy for a moment, Clinton's FEMA was professional and highly effective. Bush staffed it with political hacks, just like all his other agencies. How would Katrina have turned out under Gore? Where would stem cell research in America be today had Gore been president?

The facts simply do not support the contention that the two parties are the same.

[missminni]

I just don't see how you can describe the views of the two parties on foreign policy and regulation as "virtually identical". I would call them "night and day". If Al Gore had been president in 2000, would we have invaded Iraq? That's a pretty big foreign policy difference. Would it have been party time for antiquated coal burners? Would Scalia be on the bench? You should check out the effect of referenda on the well-being of the state of California in the last 30 years. It's not pretty. While legislatures can be influenced by monied interests, an ignorant populace can be induced to do all manner of harmful things by a clever ad campaign.

I think it is safe to say that Al Gore's presidency would have looked a lot like that of Bill Clinton. Yet, wasn't it Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and deregulated everything from telecommunications to the financial sector? It was the lack of accountability and oversight which led to the subprime mortgage crisis and surely Clinton set bad precedents in that regard.

There was some deregulation under Clinton, but the truly damaging deregulation occurred under Republican control.
In 2000, Phill Gramm (R TX), tacked a rider onto a huge appropriations bill in 2000 that deregulated Credit Default Swaps and other derivative instruments. This was known as the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This act prevented regulation of the very derivatives that entail securitization of mortgages and other debt, and effectively removed financial discipline from the lending market. In addition to this, it was a key to Enron's abuse of the California energy market and ultimate demise. When competent State Attorneys General tried to take steps to reign in subprime lenders, Bush actively stopped them!

Clinton started the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a research consortium that was working on a hybrid car back in the 90's. Bush cancelled that useful program almost instantly, and replaced it with an oil-industry approved Hydrogen Economy red herring. In areas of environment and energy, the Clinton record is pretty good, while the Bush record is abominable. Gore wrote Earth in the Balance; Bush only grudgingly admitted that Global Warming was real at the end of his term.

As for foreign policy, he continued the same sort of imperialist policies of any other politician. I think it is almost a certainty that Gore would have gone after Iraq considering the influence of K Street and PNAC going back into the 90s. Clinton launched missiles at Iraq and made it clear that the US sought “regime change.” Their preferred mode of accomplishing this was originally sanctions, but it turned out those policies were ineffective with regard to regime change and 9/11 afforded the US a great amount of soft power to reshape the world as we saw fit.

Considering the history of the American Empire, and the fact that it was the Democratic Party which was largely to blame for the strikingly similar Vietnam War, I can't imagine how anyone could have faith that they wouldn't have gone into Iraq or initiated an equivalent imperial conquest. Hillary Clinton actually voted for the freakin war... how much more evidence do you need? I admit Barack Obama at least signifies a notable shift in policy, but certainly nothing we have seen would indicate something vastly different.

There is simply no way that Gore would have had us occupy Iraq. All the smart people knew that was nuts, and the PNAC Neocons were all Republicans. The K Street Project was strictly a Republican affair. The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq was a Republican doing as well. They were virtually unanimous in supporting it, such that the votes of the Democrats didn't matter. Hillary's vote in favor was a political stance intended to ensure her electability to higher office in an environment where the American people had been utterly misinformed. A majority of Democrats opposed the AUMF. While I can't condone Hillary's cowardly and unprincipled vote, you have to look at who was stovepiping intelligence and lying to everyone; they were not Democrats. I don't think that you can call LBJ's wretched behavior emblematic of today's Democrats any more than Abraham Lincoln represents today's Republicans. Those were different eras. If we turn away from foreign policy for a moment, Clinton's FEMA was professional and highly effective. Bush staffed it with political hacks, just like all his other agencies. How would Katrina have turned out under Gore? Where would stem cell research in America be today had Gore been president?

The facts simply do not support the contention that the two parties are the same.

This is so true.
How ironic that the very thing she did to ensure her electability was in fact her Achilles heel.

As for occupying Iraq, it was a personal agenda for Bush and Cheney and they've both done quite well financially because
of it. I still find it hard to believe the American congress was so duped by that. Personally, having been an eye witness
to 911 ( a few blocks from my house) I thought it was a set up the minute the second plane hit. The ground level explosions
prior to the fall of each tower were hard to miss, and the 5:20PM collapse of bldg number 7 has never been
logically explained? I heard the series of explosions before it came down. It was a professional demolition.
How come nobody in gov't questions this? But that's another story.

Well Niner, it looks like your man got it. Now we just have to make sure he gets elected.

[/font]

[missminni]

I thought it was a set up the minute the second plane hit. The ground level explosions
prior to the fall of each tower were hard to miss, and the 5:20PM collapse of bldg number 7 has never been
logically explained? I heard the series of explosions before it came down. It was a professional demolition.
How come nobody in gov't questions this? But that's another story.
[/font][/size]

Oh boy...seems you are channeling Reverend Wright or worse.

Please. get informed. I was there. I live at ground zero. The plane flew so low over my bedroom that morning
that it made the whole room vibrate. I ran to the roof and saw it sticking out of the side of the WTC with smoke coming out.
It hadn't even burst into flames yet. I was a witness. I video taped it too. You can hear all my neighbors noticing that
there were ground explosions before the buildings fell. Everybody there that day knows that. Cops, firemen, everyone.
They just can't deal with it. It's too much, too terrible to imagine, especially when you live right there.
I saw the people jumping from windows and smelled their burning flesh. It was so horrendous you had to stop feeling just
to get through it. And then I think about the poor people of Iraq and how every moment of their life is like that. And it
probably is the same people who are responsible for it.

BTW who are you channeling? Dick Cheney?

Edited by missminni, 10 May 2008 - 09:14 PM.

[missminni]

I thought it was a set up the minute the second plane hit. The ground level explosions
prior to the fall of each tower were hard to miss, and the 5:20PM collapse of bldg number 7 has never been
logically explained? I heard the series of explosions before it came down. It was a professional demolition.
How come nobody in gov't questions this? But that's another story.
[/font][/size]

Oh boy...seems you are channeling Reverend Wright or worse.

Please. get informed. I was there. I live at ground zero. The plane flew so low over my bedroom that morning
that it made the whole room vibrate. I ran to the roof and saw it sticking out of the side of the WTC with smoke coming out.
It hadn't even burst into flames yet. I was a witness. I video taped it too. You can hear all my neighbors noticing that
there were ground explosions before the buildings fell. Everybody there that day knows that. Cops, firemen, everyone.
They just can't deal with it. It's too much, too terrible to imagine, especially when you live right there.
I saw the people jumping from windows and smelled their burning flesh. It was so horrendous you had to stop feeling just
to get through it. And then I think about the poor people of Iraq and how every moment of their life is like that. And it
probably is the same people who are responsible for it.

BTW who are you channeling? Dick Cheney?

I don't care where you were, you are still a nut.

And you are still an ass.

[Live Forever]

[inawe]

The facts simply do not support the contention that the two parties are the same.

Hey Navigator, check out the article on Obama at www.HumanEvents.com
(advertized on ImmInst).