Is it really going to matter who wins the nomination? I think any of the three front-runners would make a decent president but really, are any of them talking about dealing with the real problems?

Unrestrained Corporatism: The US is rapidly approaching a nightmare cyberpunk-esque government of, by and for the corporations but the American people are still being distracted by myths about "double taxation", still piddling around with going cap in hands to their corporate overlords to beg for a few cents more per hour or which disposable consumer gadget they can have next. Hey, I love gadgets as much as the next techie but arguing about rates of tax is missing the bloody point. The point isn't about who pays what (and Americans are insanely taxaphobic anyway), it's about the simple fact that your government is run by corporations for their own benefit. The entire US collective mind seems to have been willfully blinded to any economic model between unregulated cut-throat capitalism and Soviet Communism (and really, it says something about the US education system that so many don't know the difference between communism and socialism) and see gallopping communism in any program for the common good. Your entire public awareness of economics for the last thirty or so years has been built on Ayn Rand and "me first" and because of the legalised bribery that is campaign contributions, that's unlikely to change. Your political system is openly, transparently corrupt and the only person saying anything meaningful about this is Edwards who'd have to buy the station to get any meaningful facetime.

Global Warming: Yes, it bloody exists and yes, humans are mainly responsible. Truth be told, I think this one's gone too far to be reversed now and the best we can do is slow the collapse but how many politicians even have the nerve to do that? Even slowing things down is going to take massive change, the kind that scares the shit out of voters and since everyone wants to get elected, no-one is talking about that kind of massive change.

The Military: Do you guys realise you spend more on your military than the rest of the world combined? Seriously. And yet, you point this out to most Americans and you'll be met with a plethora of excuses for your nation's outright worship of the military. Everything from "the rest of the world hates us" (which is largely true but mainly your own fault) to some rambling discourse about terrorists (which your current army is totally unequipped and untrained to fight). Yet, no-one of the campaign trail is stating the obvious (with the exception of the largely ignored Kucinich). You don't need to spend $600 billion a year on your military, you don't even need to spend half that. And again, I know this is about getting elected and I know that the average voter worships the military and has been programmed both to be shit-scared of teh entire world and to think it's the USA's right to rule the globe but geez guys, you're sat on teh biggest build-up of military force since the fall of Rome. You don't need to be talling each other how much you support the troops, you need to be halving teh military budget (at least) and getting the poor bastards out of the meat grinder in Iraq.

The American Myth: Sooner or later, someone is going to have to challenge this. Your populace has been bred to believe that the USA is the greatest nation in the world, always moral, always good. Eventually someone is going to have to thump the populace upside the head until they realise that, for at least the last thirty years, the US has been very much a negative influence on the world. No, you're not the worst. No, you're not as bad as, say, Saudi Arabia. So fucking what? This is a child's game. Yes, other nations have been just as bad as you're being. So what? Their faults do not excuse your faults and if you're going to claim yourself as the world's moral leader (which you do) then you don't then get to claim you're no more immoral than the rest of us. Do you guys realise that you are the only country which tells the rest of the world, on a nearly constant basis, that you are the greatest country on earth? Leaving aside whether it's true, doesn't that seem rather fucking obnoxious to you? The American public psyche is built on these myths that the US is the world's oldest democracy (you aren't), greatest nation on earth (debatable), always right and moral (complete bullshit) and everyone else is jealous and should do things your way. there is this huge disconnect between how you see yourselves and how the rest of the world sees you. The rest of the world sees the US as, generally, crass, boorish, ruthlessly self-interested, strangely narcissistic, militaristic, batshit insane about religion and addicted to the simplest possible solution. Those things may or may not be true (and certainly, the US's actions on the world stage of late makes them appear true) but that's the perception. As for the idea that the rest of teh world is jealous, are you fucking kidding? I know no-one wants to address this stuff but if your nation is going to survive it's going to have to be addressed somehow because you're seeing your nation as Marcus Aurielius and the rest of us are seeing you as Caligula.

Religion: How much politicians can do about this one is open to question but your apprach to religion, frankly, terrifies us. The form of Christianity thats wedded at the hip to extreme-right politics is virtually unique to the USA. We don't see it and we don't understand it and it frightens us. In the rest of teh developed world, the vast majority accept that evolution is the most likely theory of human origins we have; in the US, the majority reject it. In the rest of the world, we are fucking frightened that so much of your country puts the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence up against a passage in a very old book and chooses to believe the book and then, sets out to undermine science. The idea that someone like Huckabee could even be considered as a presidential candidate in this century makes us wonder if America has ever really been civilised. We see reports that your bloated military is becoming ever more infected with extremist Christianity and those of us with a vague knowledge of history are frightened. No-one is talking about this stuff. No-one is talking about the rise of a militant form of Christianity that is just plain dangerous to democracy and peace. No-one is talking about the fact that half of your nation are either wilfully ignorant or just plain deluded. Look, as far as evolution goes, quibbling with the exact details or sequence of events is fine, that's a perfectly reasonable discussion. Believing that a deity kicked the whole thing off is also fine, that's my own position (after all, if you're a Supreme Being, what's a few million years while you wait for the process to run it's course?) but the guy who thinks evolution is a myth? I'm sorry but you're either insane or deliberately stupid and in neither case should you be let anywhere near the levers of power.

The Economy: This links back to corporatism. Your economy is, to put it gently, fucked. This is not an academic excercise for me, I get paid in dollars and the reason your economy is fucked is largely because of unrestrained capitalism. Without the regulation and control which only government is capable of providing, Smith's "invisible hand" (and I wish people would actually read Smith, he did NOT think this was a good thing) will automatically lock into a boom-and-bust cycle. The last recession under Chimpy kicked off a few months after he was selected and was blamed on Clinton. This one will also inevitibly be blamed on Democrats somehow and the people, who are not stupid but are easily distracted, will believe it.

Abuse Of Power: How many of the front-runners have categorically said they will disavow the dictatorial power Chimpy has grabbed for himself? Bush is now, in fact if not in name, a dictator. Why is no-one talking about overturning this? Is it as simple as naked self-interest, that they'd like to have access to that kind of power?

Courts: So, barring impeachment, you have five justices on the Supreme Court specifically chosen for their canine fidelity to neocon ideaology. I'm sorry to speak ill of your near-deified Founders but the lifetime appointments were a bad idea in the first place and we're currently seeing why. For as long as those five are on the bench, they will invalidate any progressive legislation and impose their own far-right ideaology on any case that comes to them. Why is no-one talking about this? If they can't be removed, you can at least change teh appointments process so this doesn't happen again. The Supremes have become W's roadblock, his final solution for keeping his policies intact.

Accountability: There is none and probably won't be for the Chimp-in-Chief. Impeachment is, we are repeatedly told, "off the table". When he leaves office (if he leaves and I have dark suspicians about that), you'll be told that his crimes were ancient history and the country needs to move on. He won't be punished and then, gradually, the evidence will start to disappear, the witnesses will get old and die off, history will be rewritten (as has already happened with Reagan) and W will come to be thought of as a good president or simply forgotten and then, twenty or thirty years from now, when the worst is forgotten and teh people have become complacent again, up will pop another Bush. Maybe one of the twins or Jeb's offspring, maybe some cousin (probably advised by Cheney who will refuse to die just to spite us). And they'll win. And the fascist takeover that seems to be the Bush family quest will start again. All of this could be stopped if someone had the guts to hold Bush (and, even more so, Cheney) accountable for his crimes. But no-one is, no-one's even talking about it. In a just world, CheneyBush would have been impeached last year, stripped of office and turned over to The Hague for trial on war crimes charges. But that's not going to happen. Bush is going to retire happily, give a few speaking tours to dittohads who would cheer if he read out the LA phone directory, maybe write (or have ghost-written) his autobiography and die rich, fat and happy, becoming a Reagan-esque hero to the right. Because justice has been sacrificed to pragmatism. No-one is talking about setting this right. No-one is talking about charging the bastard and giving him his day in court.

Look folks, I'd like to believe a new president will turn all this around but I can't help thinking it's too far gone now, too deeply embedded and the country is doomed. I'm in a pessimistic mood tonight. I'm not telling anyone to give up the fight. Always keep fighting, if only so you can fuck up the other guy but be prepared for the possibility that the battle is already lost. The end of America has already started and no-one noticed very much.

one of the three wins, enough will change for the better to make any real difference.

My preference would be to roll the dice and take a chance on making real, substantive change and undo everything that has been done over the last seven years. To do that, we need a liberal Democrat who will call out the real enemies and not play up to them.

As terrible as Bush is, he's just the final result of a process that's been ongoing for quite some time now. He's not so much the instigator as teh final product of a process that started probably with Prescott Bush and drew in Grover Norquist, the Kochs and a dozen others. Note, I'm not talking about a literal conspiracy but more a shared aim and way of looking at the world.

Whether they want to be, or admit to it, or not.

I'm starting to wonder if the main cause of the nakedly corrupt system isn't the method by which campaigns are funded. After all, if the megacorps are financing you, it's in your interests to ensure they can keep on doing so.

In order to get elected, or reelected, the candidates have to take money from the money guys. The candidates who really want to reform the system can't get elected because they won't take the money. The ones who do take the money are the ones who depend on "donors" to contribute more money. If they break from the system they won't have the money to get re-elected.

But, they "give" us the right to participate in the corrupt system every 2 years.

Not one of the candidates are willing to confront Bush and Cheney directly for their crimes. We have Senators that are in office right now. They have the power right now to confront Bush and his criminal family and cohorts. What part of, 'the economy is going to hell', 'the environment is killing us', 'traitors released the name of a secret agent','we were attacked while the Bush criminals were in office', 'thousands died in a hurricane for no reason', 'there are no WMDs', do they not understand. :dem:

m

K+R

Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), meaning they are self-avowed "establishment" candidates. That's why we don't hear straight talk with details from them, only platitudes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations#Notable_current_council_members

I don't think the CFR actually controls anything (nor does the BAP or similar bodies) but it does instill a similar worldview, provide contacts and so on. So while it's not the case that the CFR could tell, say, Hillary what to do, they (and similar projects) don't have to because the very fact of coming through something like the CFR means you probably see things in much the same way as they do.

Bilderberg meetings. Lets see... invite powerful politicians from only certain countries, powerful businessmen from certain countries and powerful people from the media in these same countries and make them promise to not speak about what they discuss there? Now why would they want the powerful media types there if they cant speak about what is going on? Hmmm? I am amazed that the meetings have taken place annually since the 1950's and most people have never heard of it. I wish the Clintons, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Tony Blair or Gordon Brown would fill us in on what they heard when they attended.



This is a link to a list of past attendees, there are some familiar names on it. It makes feel feel warm and fuzzy inside looking at how long the list is for our great country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees


I'm afraid Americans wont ever wake up until its too late.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Barring anything approaching actual evidence, my speculation is that it's exactly what it appears to be: An excuse for highly successful people to get away from it all, play golf, get pissed and talk to like-minded cronies for a few days. If there was anything actually important happening (other than unofficial chats), we'd never even know the group existed.

Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure why they're so notorious in the first place.

K&R

arendt

I get the electronic versions of the NY Times, Washington Post and a couple of others on occasion. We can (and I sometimes do) watch American news media here. It's fascinating to me how inward-facing American media is. The BBC is a long way from perfect but watching their nightly news broadcast, roughly 70% of it concerns international news (more when there's a very big story, obviously). Watching, say, ABC, perhaps 5% concerns the world outside your borders.

This is truly of the *BEST* posts I have ever read on DU in the six years I have been here. Unfortunately.

Wake up America!:kick:

Thanks for the rec and sorry because I wish it wasn't necessary to say this stuff. I wish that the system wasn't this broken or, failing that, that there were organised and motivated forces trying to put it right.

Or so. We Americans have been presented with several *unique* opportunities to change our course. We did not step up and do so.

however, I don't think this country is going away after all this time. Somehow I think it will survive.

The physical landmass will always be there (barring a shitload of nukes) but when everything that your Founders were aiming for has been systematically stripped away; when the day-to-day life of it's people resembles something ou of Bill Gibson's imagination (I love cyberpunk as a genre but I don't want to live there); when corporations have more rights than people; when all that has happened or is happening and no-one is trying to reverse it, can it really be called America anymore?

in the monopoly laws. At least I hope so. Oddly enough, not all business types are evil.

I agree that the corporate/Net combine does remind one at times of Gibson's vision.

But I think America is a tough system that isn't yet destroyed. I think it has enough flexibility to bounce back. People have been lamenting the destruction of most geopolitical systems since the time of the Greeks - I don't think we are done yet.

Some didn't expect it to last all that long or even want it to last.

But, yes, we have seen our peak and it's downhill from here. But that doesn't mean the end. Europe didn't disappear when America rose to power.
We'll still be here. Maybe not the world leader we once were, just a different flavor of America.

But there are different ways of weathering the storm. My own UK saw the dissolution of it's empire (which, granted, we shouldn't have had in the first place) and came through it more-or-less intact. Yugoslavia fell apart in ethnic and religious strife. Argentina became (effectively) a fascist dictatorship and I'm still undecided about Venezuala. If the problems I outlined above can be addressed, the US could transition in the same way as Britain did, slightly humbled, a little poorer but generally preserved but if the problems continue unaddressed or even exacerbated (Corporatism especially), it could go the way of Argentina or even Yugoslavia (not in ethnic terms but in religious strife and the degree to which rural and urban populace resent each other).

I of all people know how it feels. My cynically jaded self understands, but yeah it matters. Three reasons - Edwards is not M$M friendly, Obama is a charismatic black man and the one everyone runs from...quake in your boots near the Dragon Lady. A woman as president? You better believe it.

Rawr.

Matter? Shit it will change the entire landscape.

I'm a cynic by nature (and suffer from crippling depression) but I have to wonder. Edwards isn't MSM friendly, I'll grant you that but Edwards trying to set things right brings to mind that old joke about sex and the hedgehog: "One prick working against hundreds", how much difference can one man make when it's such a struggle to get anything done.

Obama reminds me very much of The Rock (I'm a wrestling fan): Elevated both despite and because of his ethnicity, traffic-stopping charisma but largely untested on top. Rock grew into his role, whether Obama can remains to be seen.

Hillary reminds me a lot of Margeret Thatcher. Oh, not her policies (Thatcher's policies were like Cheney without the compassion) but the same kind of attitude. Again, it remains to be seen if she can avoid Thatcher's failing (she grew increasingly autocratic and eventually alienated everyone) but even with Hillary...

The problem is that, while those three may have good intentions, the system itself has evolved in such a way as to prevent them from actually doing much of anything meaningful (plus Hillary and Obama would both have deep-seated prejudices to overcome even in Congress).

are not so great after all.

What's the saying about recovery? Something along the lines of having to realise there is a problem before it can be repaired.

Problem is, none of this can be fixed overnight. This is generational stuff and I'm not sure the USA has that long left, at least not in a form we would recognise.

My Country... Right Or Wrong!!! Not looking at what we've done, or the mistakes we've made, and some of them are HUM-DINGERS... just think ONE MINUTE and you could think of at least three or four. Many Americans think we're INVINCIBLE!

I always think "Rome" when I hear people tell me that American is the GREATEST NATION on Earth!! I don't know whether to laugh or cry!!

But I do feel that of the THREE, and there ARE three, that John Edwards wants to "start" with something different. He can't do much if we keep letting THIS CONGRESS screw us. Unfortunately, they almost always seem to get re-elected and WHY?? They have the money!! And yes, some in Congress aren't millionaires, but they have been there for a while and have "name recognition!"

We will fall, if we don't REVOLT!! I sincerely believe this!

It's interesting to me, how much of the trappings of US politics the Founders took from Rome. I wonder how many people actually notice that, over two millenia later, another Senate sits atop another Capitol Hill.

I'm a history buff and these tactics aren't new ones. It has been said that the beating heart of Rome was the Forum and in a sense, that's true because it allowed the plebs to scream at each other, venting their frustration, while the patricians quietly carried on doing what they were planning to do anyway. Machiavelli spelt out some of these tactics, so did Stalin. Keep the people fed and distracted and they'll be too complacent and too frightened to change anything. Milgram proved that humans are instinctively conformist and we're seeing the proof right now. Torture, for Satan's sake!


"People say they want truth and justice for all. What the really want is an assurance that life will carry on, much as it did before and tomorrow will be very much like today" (Terry Pratchett)

ALL THE CANDIDATES SUCK

It's not su much that they suck but they are products of a rotten system. As products of that system, they're not bad but being part of that system means accepting a prevailing worldview that says the military is sacrosanct, unrestrained capitalism is the only way and so on. It's a self-preserving system: No-one gets into "the club" without sharing that worldview and once in the club, they act to preserve that worldview. The result is that they tinker with the edges of the system instead of giving it the massive shake-up it so desperatly needs.

you are absolutely CORRECT....I simply have a hard time understanding most of these candidates garner HARD-CORE supporters - they're VERY FLAWED

I've noticed your news media doing this for about twenty years now. Here, the general attitude to politicians is "don't trust the bastards" but in the US, people want to like their politicians. Chimpy was famously described as the candidate most voters would like to have a beer with. That's all well and good but it doesn't tell us anything about his ability to run a country and once you start judging candidates by their personalities, a cult of personality is never far behind.

We're already seeing it with teh right and Reagan (and, to a lesser extent, W). In truth, Reagan was a D+/C- sort of president but the right looks upon him as a sort of patron saint and that's purely because of a manufactured image. Talk to some of Chimpy's remaining supporters and you'll see the same thing.

hey, where are you? just curious

I could have railed on the media too but really, they're just an extension of unrestrained corporatism. If you allow corporations to run the news media, the news media will automatically start being nice to corporations and it is in the interests of corporatiosn to keep the electorate ignorant.

EDIT: I'm in the British Midlands, just down the road from Manchester.

I spent a lot of my childhood in England: Great Yarmouth, Peterborough, High Wycombe, etc. :hi:

I was born in Coventry, spent most of my childhood in Devon and then moved here to attend university and somehow, I never left.

I want to save the world too, but the only people I can find are on the internet in other countries. The USA is not too smart globally. I think it's cool that you know more about America than Americans. I play on full tilt poker and I think you would do very well with your logical thought. The next US economy will be be based on the skill of poker. Republican senator Frist made online poker illegal for Americans because he does not believe poker is a skill. And that Original post should be in the Next Declaration Of Independence from corporations. Best post in a long time. See you on full tilt. Look me up if you want to see a donkey.

I spent much of my youth living on a holiday camp and playing five-card stud (what you would call Texas Hold'Em) was how we passed the time during the small hours of the night. And, other than enacting regulations like minimum ages (which is fair enough), it's still legal here.

I am a citizen of the United States. It is my home and my country. I haven't left it because I am connected to it and love it, but I'm a liberal, and that means I can see my country's faults, and I want to work to make my country better.

The OP, it seems to me, is spot on with all its criticisms, and is even more incisive about the Democratic Party's refusal and failure (generally) to address these very serious issues.

I hope we will do better soon.

:dem:

-Laelth

No matter who is crowned president in January of 2009, we won't see meaningful change


Kucinich addresses most all of the real issues, which of course is why he has been removed from the campaign by the corporations.

And the religion thing (like you mentioned, the particular brand of religion wedded with the right wing) scares the bejeesus out of me, too. Always has.

I'm sure there are quite a few Americans who feel as I do but there are many more who don't see anything wrong with things that couldn't be fixed simply by a new president. I have talked to Americans; liberal, well-read Americans, who honestly believe that your military acts only in self-defence, for example.

The U.S. can't take much more self-abuse.

no one is going to stop the Iraq war and occupation . . . no one is going to provide universal healthcare . . . no one is going to seriously address global warming . . . no one is going to be able to do a damned thing to halt the pending recession/depression . . . etc. etc. etc. . .

...tonight. Obama's line that MLK was an agent of bottom-to-top authentic change, that it wouldn't work the other way around.

"Change occurs when politicians listen, and respond to what the people want," or something like that.

Would you please print your post, with all the comments, and mail them to him, cc'ing HRC and John?

Or, maybe, we could collect donations to hire a small plane to fly over each of the campaign headquarters for all three candidates, and drop thousands of leaflets?

Or, maybe it would be cheaper, but even more effective, to find jobless, homeless army vets (the one's Bill O' says don't exist), and give them a decent day's pay check to carry sandwich boards on the street, in front of each campaign HQ, with the post printed front and back?

And let's not forget the dozens of posts that have been put up here, and the hundreds of others, on other web sites, from all over this country, that have expressed similar ideas.

(Not to mention the thousands and tens of thousands that must exist on web sites, all over the planet, or the hundreds of thousands and millions that would exist, if all the people who don't currently spend much time web surfing, because they're all too busy feeding their families on pennies a day, actually had a voice.)

Maybe we could think of some creatively effective ways to get those messages across, too?

From this page:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/debate.transcript3/index.html

...OBAMA: Well, I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable, and this goes to the core differences, I think, in this campaign.

I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that.

(APPLAUSE)

It was those women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus, union workers who are willing to take on violence and intimidation to get the right to organize. It was women who decided, "I'm as smart as my husband. I'd better get the right to vote."

OBAMA: them arguing, mobilizing, agitating, and ultimately forcing elected officials to be accountable, I think that's the key.

So that has been a hallmark of my career, transparency and accountability, getting the American people involved. That's how we're going to bring about change. That's why I want to be president of the United States, to respect the power of the American people to bring about change.

(APPLAUSE)


...Just one last, quick observation, having scrolled through two of the three pages of the debate transcript. I heard loud BOO's, as well as APPLAUSE. Most memorably when HRC was bringing up the non-issue of Barack's 'present' votes in the Illinois State Legislature, and that ridiculous sex-shops and schools B.S. The CNN transcript only records two types of audience reactions, LAUGHTER, and APPLAUSE. BOOING is not condoned.

:kick:

we'd have to bash the country like a good Brit?

It'd be kinda hard to win an election saying these things wouldn't it?
Our government is corrupt. Our planet is probably doomed. Our military is too large and expensive (really? Compared to China, perhaps? "Since the mid-1990s the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army
(PLA), has been engaged in a seminal period of focused and sustained
efforts to modernize. For more than a decade the armed forces of China
have been undergoing transformative adjustments of such a profound nature
relative to the past that one group of mainland military authors considers this ongoing period of reform to constitute the PLA’s “third modernization.”" Sure, we spend much more than China, but is that largely due to cheap Chinese labor?) America sucks. Our economy is screwed. The President is a dictator (even though he can't jail me for saying so? Or can he?) Our Supreme Court sucks. And so does our Justice system.

Any one of those issues would be bound to cause a landslide. For the other side that is.

I don't know. I agree with a fair amount of what you have said, but don't like the presentation nonetheless. It sounds too much like an Englishman looking down his nose at us. Never mind that one of Bush's international enablers/cheerleaders/co-conspirators was, uhm, Britain's Tony Blair, presumably of the Labour party, and before that y'all gave the world Thatcher to complement our Reagan b.s. And didn't it take an American President to help straighten our your Irish mess? You recently paid us back in full for WWII, but apparently never will for WWI. Myself being of German, and specifically Alsatian ancestry, I'm kinda annoyed that we didn't fight that one on the side of the Germans.

First off, I'm surprised it took this long to deflect the issue into talking about Britain's problems (all of which I'd be happy to own up to at an appropriate juncture). It's a standard tactic when an outsider says somethign teh subject dislikes.

Yes, you spend vastly more on your military than China. They may or may not be catching up but, assuming they are, so what? They still aren't even within sniffing distance of half of your military budget, you have enough stockpiled bombs to reduce the country to rubble and why are you competing with them anyway? Are the Chinese likely to land at Boston and march on DC? Is there a plague of parachuting Chinese on the horizon? No, China is extremely unlikely to invade anytime in the near future so other than cultural machismo, what are you competing for?

This isn't an Englishman looking down his nose at the States, Britain has big problems of it's own (although we are in better shape than the States right now). However, Britain's problems don't much affect anyone outside our own borders while the US's problems, due to economics, cultural imperialism, domination of the international bodies and so on, affect everyone, everywhere. Consider it more an arrogant depressive {contradiction, I know) looking down his nose at everyone.

Yes, Blair was one of Bush's chief enablers. That's a big part of why he was forced to resign last year. Thatcher was lucky enough to have an opposition that seemed determined to self-destruct. I took my minor in PoliSci and concentrated quite heavily on Thatcher's rise and fall so I'd be happy to discuss that if you like. Bill Clinton's efforts to sort out the Northern Ireland mess were just that, Bill Clinton's efforts. His status as president had little to do with it while his personal skill as a diplomat had everything to do with it.

Now, as regards the wars: WWII, the US saved us, no arguement there. WWI is more dubious. The sinking of the Lusitania probably accounts more for the US getting involved than anything in WWI but yes, you saved us in WWII. After being forced into the war by Pearl Harbour, after everyone else had been slaughtered by the genocidal Bavarian for three years. We paid you for it and more importantly, we've backed you on every single thing since. After sixty years and goodness knows how many embaressments, our gratitude has pretty much run out. Or are you still lauding teh French for contributing (by the end of teh war) a quarter of the troops, three-quarters of the gunpowder and all the money to the war of independance?

we have 500,000 in our Armed Forces (this is a WAG). We pay them an average of $30,000 a year (another WAG). Cost $15 billion (or thousand million in English). China has 2 million in their armed forces. They pay them an average of $2,000 a year. Cost $4 billion. China buys tanks, guns, bullets, jeeps, helicopters, boats, missles, etc., etc. with Chinese labour (although they may also use one of the world's leading arms suppliers) costing $1 an hour.

Anyway, I wanna know if people are comparing military expenditures based on Purchasing Power Parity.

Also, about Bill Clinton, just shows that maybe, possibly the influence of America on the world has not been all bad in the last 30 years, and about Blair that it might not have been so bad without the assistance of Britain (and Australia). Not to mention the frigging rubber stamping security council that some were hoping would prevent an invasion of Iraq.

It has been a long, long, long time since grade school for me, even if my reasoning/understanding does not show it, but back then in history classes we were lauding the French for their invaluable assistance even if they helped us not for our sake, but to weaken their English rivals.

If you want most people to stop deflecting the issues, you've gotta give them a better message than basically "you suck, your family sucks, your friends suck, and your neighbors suck too". Maybe try being like Nathan when he described a certain person to King David and David exclaimed "the man who has done this shall surely die!" and only then was told "you are that man".

Right now, I wish i had that kind of faith but it seems to me that the whole show is running on a drive for changes which are mainly superficial.

For the reasons you've stated and more, the seats in both Houses of Congress are more important than ever - certainly more important than which personality gets to sit in the offal/awful office.

I think that the election of a Dem means no WWIII and likely end of the world in the next 8 years.

The election of a Republican means possible WWIII and possible end of the world in the next 8 years.

So yes, I think it makes a difference!

Again, I think the system enforces a particular kind of worldview.

Hopefully, we'll nominate someone who can beat McCain or Romney.

If we get a Democratic prez, we will be disappointed in most of what they can't accomplish, even if there's a Democratic majority in congress. We'll moan as if we have Nancy Pelosi in the oval office.

But, we'll get a shot at some decent SCOTUS appointments.

If we don't get a Democrat into the White House, then we lose that opportunity.

you mean won't accomplish.

Watch any of his speeches - he covers most of those points
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxOYF9ZAe0

The rest of you wanna give up - hey - it's sort of a free country still. Fact is, you'd probably be appreciated for sitting down and shutting up. Lamentations are about worthless. Forgive my ignorant hope that this ship could be fed a course correction. After all - what the fuck's the alternative???

Go Johnny GO

Edwards is the only one remotely addressing the most important issues we face today. Certainly he's the one I've heard speak the most about poverty and homelessness, which are two of my biggest issues.

And I don't say this as an Edwards Supporter, I'm basically just waiting the primary season out...but I begin to lean most strongly in his direction (much as I'd like to see a woman or an ethnic minority elected as President).

Or, rather, of unrestrained corporatism. The corporation as a body needs people of means to buy it's goods but it also needs a cheap underclass to make it's goods, preferably an underclass that can be exploited and fired at will. In some areas, that's migrant labour but an uneducated (the drop-out rate in some States is fearsome) native underclass will do just as well.

In the words of teh late Molly Ivins, capitalism is a wonderful tool for creating wealth but people cheat, that's why it needs to be regulated.

A agree 100% with everything you've said here. I'd like to forward it to everyone I know, but all the "fucks" preclude that.

I grew up in a blue-collar fishing and tourist town; F-words were considered the basic building blocks of speech :)

Not all Democrats are alike, one or two will offer real change and a fresh new direction and another will offer a return to the past- only with someone new leading us backward. I don't believe you can go back and relive the past. Our best days are ahead of us-not behind.

i've rather have some of what i want than none of what i want

if you want to give up in advance and cry "oh woe what's the use" be my guest but i wish you would not try to influence others in that direction

global warming won't be prevented by weeping whiners sitting on their hands going "what's the use?"

Really, I'm more sort of bitching at the world in general/the Fates/God.

And as I said in the OP, that doesn't mean stop fighting. Always fight, if only for self-respect and to mess up the other guy.

the 800 lb gorilla in the room. It has a stranglehold on our politicians. Except Dennis of course.

I would never invite you into a hospital room before surgery. ;-)

Peace.

And I even live here. It's a miracle they retain me as a natural born citizen!


Oh yeah, and Canada is looking better every day!

...I'm kidding (I hope).

and a scream.

I don't believe these three will do a damn thing to fix any core problems, but we can still flush some sludge out of Congress.

"The end of America has already started and no-one noticed very much."
Maybe we need a national alarm clock, or maybe people are awake and just demented.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

I see you're a history buff (thank you, by the way, that's fascinating). Consider what Hitler said about the "big lie" technique and the populace's tendancy toward forgetfulness.

The man who wishes to be emperor needs a thousand enemies, all of whom wish to replace him, all of whom can be convinced to attack one another first.

history to seriously worry about the future. Germany had an alarm clock, but most hit the snooze button and the rest got the hammer. The White Rose is new to me but I thought it worth sharing.

The "big lie" is still just as effective as ever and it seems like there's no limit to what these corpochristofascists will try to get away with, even keeping the Blight House one way or another.

while at the same time avoided being burned at the stake, I hope you continue doing both...

As we say here in the land of dwindling milk and honey (aka the homeland),
This Buds for you… :toast:
K&R

Bud. Weird thing I noticed about the States, the US does actually produce some very fine beers, I'm especially fond of Lone Star Pale and Sam Adams but the one's we get exported tend to be lacklustre.


Hang on, I answered my own question there: If they were good, they wouldn't be exported.


Oh, and I work for Beliefnet in my daily life and I'm openly a Satanist. If the fundementalists there haven't managed to burn me at the stake yet, I think I can assume I'm fireproof :)

K&R!