Cynicism and the electorate
Cynicism part II- "How's that 'change' working out?"
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Obama Reaches Out for McCain’s Counsel
What a surprise.
Too bad nobody saw it coming.
Monday, January 19, 2009
9 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maybe we can offset the cost of the inauguration party with the money made off of those cool commemorative plates I see for sale on the TV?!
ReplyDeleteAt least he's not completely batshit fucking deranged. For those who believe that a democratic republic led by someone who seems willing to confront and accept reality as it exists, and not just as reflected in the fevered dreams and nightmares of depraved subfunctional troglodytes, Obama is far from a "Republican". Granted that from the standpoint of those who seek overthrow of the current constitutional order, Obama is no better than any Republican. In fact, he is probably worse, because he has a chance of improving the daily lot of enough people to make constitutional revolution less likely.
ReplyDeleteOBAMA WON'T SOCIALIZE AND WON'T DEMOCRATIZE USA.
ReplyDeletehttp://barefootbum.blogspot.com
http://christian-socialists.blogspot.com
http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com
WHAT WE NEED IS A REAL CHRISTIAN, HUMANIST, SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT WHICH WOULD BE A SERVANT OF THE POOR PEOPLE. RIGHT NOW THE POOR US CITIZENS ARE ENSLAVED BY THE US GOVERNMENT.
WE NEED THE TOTAL OPPOSITE. WE NEED A REVOLUTIONARY-STATE WHICH WOULD DEBILITATE THE POWER OF THE RICH PEOPLE, AND SHIFT THAT POWER TO THE POOR AMERICANS.
A GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE POORS, A SORT OF ROBIN HOOD, WHICH WOULD LITERALLY ROB THE RICH AND USE THAT MONEY FOR THE POOR, A SERVANT OF THE POORS.
BUT FOR THAT, POOR AMERICANS NEED TO GET OUT OF THEIR SOFAS, AND COMFORTABLE LIFESTYLES AND FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN RIGHT
WHAT AMERICANS NEED IS A SOCIALIST-GOVERNMENT, NOT A CAPITALIST-GOVERNMENT, AND OBAMA IS A CAPITALIST. AND AS LONG AS THE US GOVERNMENT IS CAPITALIST, USA WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ISRAEL.
Capitalism in the U.S. consists of large Corps which outsource, leaving unemployed and struggling, while the owners and bankers become wealthier riding the stock market. And in foreign policy, exploiting the weaker nations for cheap labor and ownership of natural resources.
Republican Bush II cut off almost 1 million families from unemployment insurance benefits, leaving 8 million in 2003 both unemployed and in debt, unable to find jobs, without health and child care. 43.6 billion without health care. In 2002, 34.6 million, 1 in 6, were earning below the poverty level with denial of welfare from bureaucracy, while Rep Bush spends over 30 million in program for "healthier marriage education." Dem Clinton abolished the federal main welfare program to help the poor, removing 54 billion in over 6 years for those who earn less than 7 dollars an hour. Under Clinton there was a back lash against gays in the military and affirmative action, regression of gay sexual relations as a crime and the 2 millionth prisoner incarceration of U.S. citizens, mostly minorities.
In the U.S., the small super rich own 1 percent earned what 40 percent earn annually and exploitation in foreign policy, Bush's Iraq never turned back into "normal," with continual death, poverty and destruction, while the years of Clinton's sanctions and bombings have killed an untold number of innocent men, women and children, making not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, as the U.S. has had a hand in almost every foreign war and civil war, employing both military and economic imperialism, a system of exploitation, as in McDonalds and now Wall Mart, the IMF, WTO, controlling loans and aid, outsourcing cheap labor, misery and suffering, all for the profit of the wealthy and privileged few.
And so the Socialistic solution is that for free universal education and health care, the end of the ownership of companies by the minority wealthy class to that of equalitarian of democratic (not limited representative) which are not run by elaborate bureaucracies and the means for profit driven motives. The end of over production, layoffs and wasteful spending to increase profit for the owners denying the underpaid proletariat, government run from the bottom-up. Each ordinary person having a democratic voice and partially held responsibility. "To each according to their ability, to each according to their need." The critics who claim no incentive, all refusing to work or take on the menial easy to do jobs, fail to recognize the human drive in passion to work in a field that truly interests them, while equalitarian economically, awarded with various honors and prestige.
How can we create socialism within this capitalistic system, if our so-called democracy is based on electoral votes designed to keep third and leftist (all other) political parties out of the race? This along with the voting fraud of the 2000 presidential election. The entire process of both the Democrats and the Republicans are run by wealthy and corporate campaign donations buying tax breaks and deregulation's - "corporate welfare." This is because it costs millions of dollars to run for the Senate, the House and the presidency - Only 5% donations are from the unions, while 75% are from the wealthy and large corporation. So the politician, both Dems and Reps, needing votes, must then commit fraud and lie to the people as their representative, while catering to the wealthy. This is capitalism.
Both parties in capitalism are corrupt in favor of the rich, as its not just the fanatic Right Wing Bush, as Clinton the Democrat broke a string of promises failing to: end gay discrimination in the military, to grant asylum to Haitians in Guantanamo Bay, to stop scabs crossing strikers picket lines and to bring health care reform. Instead he expanding the death penalty, prisons and police power and eliminate most of the welfare for the poor. With all this, the labor parties supported him because he was a Democrat - an illusion that Dems are for the people which came from Roosevelt's New Deal, which real reason was to prevent a possible socialistic revolution, a concession from people's pressure and still keep the wealthy protected capitalism. The same can be said in Kennedy's and Johnson's Civil Rights amendments; only from the pressure of the working person's protests. To vote Dem or the lesser evil principle is not a real choice! Both parties have shifted to Right. And the judicial system is not an election from the people or popular vote. Reforms are not from the White House but those voices in the streets, the factories and the work places. Capitalism cannot be reformed, it is always designed to protect the rich and ruling class. No president has the power to go against the demands of the large Corps, who threaten to take their money out of the U.S., removing their obligation to pay taxes. And when foreign governments turn socialistic and equalitarian, the mighty U.S. comes in and destroys them either, set up coos and doctoral regimes to protect U.S. wealthy and corporate economic interests, all under the false disguise of democracy. And while reforms are beneficial and are supported by socialists, they recognize it is only by revolution, by force, that this injustice of wealth, poverty, inequality, imperialism, consumerism, lack of health care, aid and homelessness can this be changed.
.
Hey you all: i have a question for you all in this blogger !!
ReplyDeleteWHEN DO YOU PEOPLE THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE A SOCIALIST-WELFARE SYSTEM IN USA OR AT LEAST A WELFARE-REGULATED SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT SYSTEM LIKE RALPH NADER, OR CYNTHIA MCKINNEY IN USA?
I MEAN WHEN DO U THINK THAT THE GREEN PARTY MIGHT RULE IN USA OR ANY OTHER SMALL LEFTIST PARTY?
2012? 2016?
?
I apologize in the name of all people with Marxian ideals for the behavior of Capitan Capslock.
ReplyDeleteOk, I roughly agree with him but there are sane ways to describe our stand.
Obama, though, is actually competent and not a hack. I've seen his press conferences. He actually answers the questions he is asked. You even get the sense that the answers are honest and not evasions.
ReplyDeleteSo I agree with physio in that, since the GOP is now basically a party wholly composed of hacks, with political hackery as a party platform, Obama is not a Republican.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for saying it. Again and again.
ReplyDeletehugo chavez warned Obama, that he might be assasinated while in his presidency.
ReplyDelete"hugo chavez warned Obama, that he might be assasinated while in his presidency." Along with hundreds of thousands of ignorant rednecks with no idea of how to accomplish the feat. The only way Obama will see any bullets flying by his head is if he chooses to piss off the people with the money...which, it seems, is exactly what he is preparing not to do. Thus his label here as a palative.
ReplyDelete