I have followed the ping-pong dialogue of F. Anderson and Stuart H. over the last few weeks with interest. This is because I too have engaged in new party flings in 1964, 1968, 1972, + 1980, alas, to no avail!

Anderson makes some useful distinctions between latter day Demmies and this latest new party caper. There have been about 225 of them with national aspirations since 1789, almost all of them ephemeral, and ineffectual, save for the Socialists led by Eugene Debs early in the 20th century.

Stuart H., on the other hand, has opted to go down on the Democrat Titanic once more, like so many submissive Liberals of years past. I have watched for 58 years, as this party’s politicians have given way most of the time since 1952 when our people voted the clown Eisenhower, with Crook Nixon as his VIP, and his cabinet all hand-picked by the worst reactionary Republicans on the American scene.

Now that the racist southern rednecks have gone over to the Republican party where they rightly belong, more Americans are voting reactionary, (some 59 million in the 2004 presidential election) vs. 56 million for that intellectual runt of the litter, Kerry, of the Democrat party. Some 79 million eligible voters did not go to the polls, or were discouraged by long lines, broken machines, or other Republican trickery, particularly by the usual Fascist/Republican scum in Florida and Ohio.

Given the gutless, hopelessly fragmented Demican party, I think it doomed like the uselesss Whig Party was in the 1848-1856 era. The sooner we opt to kill it off, the better for progressive pros-pects in the future.

On the other hand, the sheer infantilism, pomposity and devious manipulative capers of Green Party leadership cliques make it impossible for mature progressives to take it seriously.

I say this, having voted for Nader twice and not willing to vote Democrat ever again. This is because both major parties are completely corrupt, and have rigged ballot access in all but a few states, to prevent new party entries.

In closing, has anyone out there read Ralph Nader’s “Crashing the Party” ? It will help real Patriots understand just why and how our so-called democratic process is so degenerate, it surely ranks last among bona-fide democracies in the world. In 2000 + 2004 the Green Party capers were pathetic indeed in the face of these national challenges. They will be equally useless in 2008 as well. We need to destroy the Demicans and construct a replacement for it as well. This is, of course, likely to be impossible given our political system as broken down and corrupt as the obscene Soviet system which collapsed not so very long ago.

Ion C. Laskaris, Burlington, Vermont

re; paul white

As a mother of an active duty xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I do consider you to be a murderer and a hypocrite.  if my son were to die tomorrow, I will think of “you personally”, realizing that you contributed to his death:

failing to acknowledge and CORRECT the major screw-up decisions that we endured and CONTINUE to endure. Support of a full blown civil war at present.  The lists runs deep, so I’ll stop here.

I’m acutely aware more than most, of the vietnam history, as one foot step away 4 * x 3 sat @ my dinner table for years during our past history.

Please don’t cause me any more heart pain by your destructive language.

As a family we have shed a millions tears over this war hell, with truth known (of which you know little) of all the dirty lies.  Have you been in Iraq?

Mother of US Special Forces Soldier
d-green
green
rangers
seals

Sadly most are not able to understand the stock market, let alone manager their own 401k’s.  Hencefore, many don’t realize the financial dirty strings behind the window dressing, until it is to late.  I fully agree with the floor trader who has graciously tried to educate you.

and a final thought or 2:
when the xxxxx cross under dow you don’t fly on airplanes! At present, this is true since early august.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/04/stories/20060904044714 00.htm

Reply to Comment 21567 by Stuart H.

“A great coalition can be formed by agreeing to disagree about certain elements.” You continue to repeat the very point I am trying to refute. I, and other Greens I might add, have no more interest in forming a coalition, “great’ or otherwise, with such illiberal Democratic warhawks as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Charles Schumer than I am in forming a coalition with George Bush, Newt Gingrich, or other Republicans. I, and Greens in general, do not agree on enough matters with even the so-called “progressive” Democrats to consider building a coalition with them. They always want us to sacrifice some of our principles, not the other way around. That is why most of us have joined the Green Party. We are not interested in building a “coalition” with Democrats. A major difference between you and me is that while I share your dislike of Republican policies, I do not share your generally positive view of Democratic policies. In many ways, I dislike the hypocritical so-called “progressive Democrats” (a term that is an oxymoron) even more than I dislike Republicans (who are at least honest enough to admit what and who they are). That is the entire point that I have been trying to convey in my posts. You can continue to dream of some “great coalition” but you must also be a realist and acknowledge that Greens are not going to be a part of it. There is a reason why the Green Party is running candidates against even the most “progressive” Democrats in this year’s elections.

Reply to Comment # 21485 by Tony Wicker

So-called “progressive Democrat Barbara Boxer is the US Senator from California. I live in New York state. My US Senators are Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton. When I, in fact, did contact Barbara Boxer to object to her support for the Patriot Act(following an interview she gave the Progressive magazine) she wrote back that “congressional courtesy” prevented her from giving a serious and substantive reply to the concerns of constituents of other Senators. When I expressed a similar concern to “progressive Democratic” Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (also from California)I got a similar response, with her further suggestion that I contact my own Congressman, a right-wing Republican named Thomas Reynolds (I had contacted Nancy and asked that she stop sending me, a registered Green, requests to contribute money to the Democratic National Congressional Campaign Committee and my Republican Congressman Reynolds would have had no interest in the matter whatever). When I have contacted my own “progressive Democratic” Senators Schumer and Clinton to complain about their own militarism and presposterous posturing to the right of Bush and the Republicans on Iraq and other “security” matters, I have barely received courteous treatment. But let me make clear that I have virtually no interest in conducting further communication with these folks. I do agree with you that the real issue is peace. The congressional Democrats, including the so-called “progressives, have shown no interest in promoting “peace.” For that reason I hope for their political defeat and wish to replace them with real “progressives.” That is why I joined the Green Party. If this be “factionalism” so be it. On the other hand, when one calls a position other than one’s own a name—such as “factionalism”—is one engaging in name-calling in an effort to have the position dismissed rather than discussed? And if so, is that terribly ethical?

To wicher re: #21225 This dialogue, in my judgement, has nothing to do with “the validity of what you have to say.” For me the questions and positions you pose, I try to measure vs. my own personal experience and studies in the history of civilization. We will never agree until one or more events in the future convinces one of us that his assessment of reality and human nature is mistaken. That’s life!

Yes, I have been tracking Rabbi Lerner, and Tikkun, whose endeavors I do respect, but cannot agree with on the specific issue of “trusting Arabs and Moslems, or their damnable “Intifadas!” I will try to get to his book shortly,to comment.

On “dialogue with enemies” this is sometimes an “impossible choice” morally or realistically. Many of us who watched the rise of Nazi Germany and the outcomes of slaughter and holocaust it caused, much to the delight of all the Arab moral trash, we can never forgive or forget.

It is therefore impossible to accept the foolish dream of “a multi-ethnic democracy” as a viable course of action for Israel. As a Greek,whose family from Nicea, fought Turks for some 1300 years, the vigorous separation of these ethnic antagonists is absolutely necessary for Israel’s survival, as it was, for the revival of a Greek nation. As for entrusting the security of any people to international guarantees of the corrupt, lazy and devious U.N. leadership, this is an intolerable option as well.

I mention these points simply to underline a certain force of historical inevitability and the more ugly aspects of tribal humankind behaviors, which are likely to create even more bloodshed and destruction in the 21st century than they did in the last one.

Finally, are you familiar with the ancient Greek meaning of “antagonist” who is the challenger to the “protagonist”, the existing champion of the moment. This is an eternal struggle! Ecce Homo! To refuse the “antagonist’s challenge” is, more often than not, to remain enslaved forever.

Ion C. Laskaris, Burlington,Vt. + iclrevusa.com

Reply to: Comment #21293 by Floyd Anderson

I think the issue here is really the problem of trying to discern the person behind the email, which is something that should require long thinking and some attempt to see a thread of agreement.  It’s a harder art to practice than it would seem to be.

A lot of the time, this medium seems informed by video games, which are about zapping some enemy.  In real politics, the problem that is so difficult that it sometimes seems to be impossible, is to inform a debate so as to achieve a deliberation among strong people who disagree at least somewhat.

The problem many people have with politics is that translating the strong opinion that works in a forum presentation into real life policy, takes dealing with others as they actually are and working from some point of agreement, no matter how small, towards practical goals.

There’s a continuum out there, with people spread all along it because we are all limited beings who are struggling to understand the right balance between ourselves as individuals, and others in groups on many different levels.

I think that my disagreements with Greens are ironic.  Mostly, some of my all-time favorite people are Greens.  But I just see a sort of practicality in the Democratic Party that seems workable to me - at this time.

I see the challenges of moving Democratic Party leaders and local board members as well as rank and file delegates and voters to more Progressive positions, and I prefer - again, at this time - orienting towards those challenges.

I don’t see a need to develop some argument about this where none is needed.  We have the long run to work out the great issues.  If we elect people to any office whatsoever who is open to progressive policies -whether by that lable or some other - that is something to work with.

The main thing we need in our elected leaders and candidates at this point is the courage to face issues honestly and the creativity and energy to actually lead in the right direction instead of just pandering to the big money interests.

The way this comes about is that We The People work in whatever way we can to spread the consciousness needed in the public that progressive change is possible,
and that people elected to public office can be intelligent, honest, and capable of leadership in the right direction. 

Vote for the wrong people - or decline to be involved in the process - and we see what results.  It’s up to each of us and everyone we can possibly talk to by whatever means to turn a trend that has been developing for several decades around.

A great coalition can be formed by agreeing to disagree about certain elements, while joining forces to create a movement in the right direction.  If we get rid of the fascist right wing as a majority in Washington and at many local levels, we can work out the details.  Just beginning to recover from the damage done under Bush could, unfortunately, take some time.

The last thing we need is to see some Bush dynasty instituted while we fail to overcome a deeply human tendency to fight our friends harder than we fight our enemies over perfection issues, while the great conflagration rages.

Reply to Comment #21293 by Floyd Anderson on 9/02 at 5:07 am

Though your differences with “progressive Democrats” such as Barbara Boxer are real and well stated, and I would agree with a lot of them, nevertheless I think you might balance this with consideration of what things you and Barbara may have in common. If you don’t do this, then, I fear, you fall into factionalism, which is the curse of politics. The issue is peace, not what party you’re in. If you don’t agree with something Barbara said or did, have you tried contacting her to point out in a friendly way what you consider to be the error of her ways?

Response to Comment #21155 by Stuart H:

For many years before I became a member of the Green Party I was a “progressive Democrat.” I am definitely not making characterizations of people and positions that I do not understand. For you to suggest so, Sir, shows intellectual arrogance, not to mention collosal ignorance and naivete, on your part. One of the most annoying things about certain “liberal” Democrats such as yourself is their constant and never-ending attempts to tell Greens what we really think or should think or what we should do (e.g., have Green Party candidates step
aside in close elections to make the race safe for some illiberal Democrat). To suggest that there are basic and important ideological differences between Greens and Democrats is not to make “hard and fast choices” or to create “false divisions.” Congressional Democrats, almost every one of them, support globalization and so-called “free trade” and have voted for NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Greens almost uniformly oppose globalization. Pointing this out is not “creating false divisions.” Even alleged “progressive” Democrats like Barbara Boxer voted for the Patriot Act. NO green would have done so. Many “progressive” Democrats voted to support Bush’s illegal “preemptive” war against Iraq. NO Green would have done so. Congressional Democrats (every single one of them now that Cynthia McKinney is leaving) take money and marching orders from AIPAC and the rest of the Israeli Lobby. No Green would do so. Greens favor divestment from Israel and condemn Israel’s crimes against humanity. Tell me that this is a “false division.” I know that it pains you, Sir, to have to admit that Greens really are a different breed from so-called “progressive Democrats”(the term really is an oxymoron) and that realignment of Greens with Democrats is unlikely to take place ant time soon. Despite the intellectual arrogance that tends to characterize several of your posts in this discussion, it is you who seems not to be very well informed on this matter. If you really do want to understand Greens and where they are coming from, I suggest that you go to Green Commons (http://greencommons.org) and spend some time reading the blogs there. That might raise your awareness considerably and perhaps make you less likely to arrogantly dismiss the real differences between Democrats and Greens as “hard and fast either/or choices.”

Reply to Comment #21181 by Ion Constantine Laskaris

Thank you so much, sir, for joining this conversation. Let us reason together as two friends. That’s all people have to do, really. You are just the man I wanted to speak with. If I could possibly convince you of the validity of anything I say, maybe I could convince the rest of Israel. I wonder, have you read Rabbi Michael Lerner’s “Healing Israel/Palestine”? I am just reading it now and I think it presents an objective view of the conflict that is very fair to all sides.

Reply to Comment #21149 by Floyd Anderson on 9/01 at 12:24 pm

Very well stated also. You’re right about the so-called “progressive Democrats”, including, alas, Howard Dean and Barbara Boxer. They were against the Iraq war from the beginning. I give them lots of credit for that, in contrast to Democrats who didn’t. On the other hand, they are now circling the wagons around the position that Iraq was a diversion from the real war, the “War on Terror”, which they say the Bush Administration has completely screwed up. They figure the American people will buy this, and they very likely will. But it is only a half-truth, and unfortunately they don’t question fundamental U.S. policies that have led to this mess, policies shared by both Democratic and Repulican Administrations in the past. They don’t have the guts for that. They are still cowardly politicians. They don’t seem to think the American people will buy the truth, so they huddle around this half-truth. But if they told them the truth, maybe they would believe it. Maybe the American people are only as dumb as their politicians treat them.

John C. - #20132 on 08/27 seems determined to grovel before the Arabs for life, as a kind of Al Jazeera media mouth. Whether it is devoted ignorance or conscious propaganda blogmouth one cannot rightly tell. Perhaps he simply does not like Jews, and there’s an end to it.

Wicher, by contrast, seems to be a sincere advocate with his hopes of Jews “making friends” with enemies since “time immemorial!” There are some enemies who must remain so until one of the forces disintegrates under the weight of its own contradictions and malevolence. This will happen in most of the Moslem world in this century, in my judgement.

Perhaps neither of these individuals knows the Arabs in Palestine, with the backing of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the Saudis, Iraqis, have fought against Israel’s existence for 60 years - by force of arms, covert violence, major middle east lies and propaganda, economic boycotts, and poisonous preaching of viscious and ignorant Imams and Ayatollahs.

The Arab nations have always resisted both the one-state and the two state solutions proposed by the UN in the 1947-48 era.             

They will always do so until Israel is destroyed,
or they collapse from their own degenerate and obsolete cultural processes, through civil war- or revolutions in the course of the 21st century.

While I find the Fascist/Republican traditions in our own country equally destructive to humankind, the prospects of life in a Moslem world for those of us who think of ourselves as freethinkers and secular humanists would represent the end of our Western civilization. I prefer the collapse of the
obsolete world constructs first.

Ion C. Laskaris, Burlington,Vermont+iclrevusa.com

Characterizing “Greens” and “Democrats” by hard and fast either/or choices may help create a case for why one decides to commit one way or another, but there are largely issues that are under a lot of debate.  It is not an oxymoron at all to be a progressive and be a Democrat.

Be careful to label other people’s views with whom you may not have much familiarity.  We do best when we attempt to understand our own and articulate them for the purpose of enriching the common dialogue, not creating false divisions, the way Republicans do.

Greens and Democrats are very far apart on many issues. Greens tend to be “progressive” or “left-wing” anarchists (in the tradition of William Lloyd Garrison and Elizabeth Cady Stanton) whereas “progressive Democrats” (if the term is not an oxymoron) are ‘statists” and “Liberals.” Progressive Democrats tend to be pro- globalization and so-called free trade; Greens are against it. Progressive Democrats (Howard Dean, who is anathema to most Greens, is a perfect example) support an AIPAC sponsored foreign policy that puts the interests of Israel above those of the US; Greens denounce Israel’s crimes,advocate divestment from Israel and wish to eliminate military aid to Israel and give equal financial support to the Palestinians as we give to Israel. Many Progressive Democrats support the war in Iraq and will also support Bush’s forthcoming nuking of Iran; Greens went to the streets to oppose the assault on Iraq and will go to the streets to oppose further US militarism in Iran and elsewhere. Progressive Democrats are in favor of further “centralization”; Greens are in favor of decentralization. I could go on and on. My point is that Greens have so many differences with Democrats that it is uninformed and unrealistic to expect Greens to cooperate with Progressive Democrats in “reforming” (by whose standards?) the unredeemable and unreformable (by Green standards) Democratic Party.

Reply to Comment #21126 by Stuart H on 9/01 at 9:07 am

Very well said. If we all get real about the issues, then we will naturally cooperate and will not descend into partisan antagonism. For me the issue is peace. I will support anyone whom I consider to be a principled peace advocate against anyone I do not so consider, whether the persons involved be Democrat, Green, or Republican. By the way, there are such things as principled Republican peace advocates, whose voices are beginning to be heard. Did you see that anti-war rally led by the Mayor of Salt Lake City? I will not call anyone “vile”, much less Barbara Boxer, because, as a principled peace advocate myself, I understand that antagonism in ANY form leads to war, not peace. Let’s not even call the Bush Administration vile, let alone liberal Democrats. Let’s just say that the last eight years has been a complete fiasco and proves that they are completely wrong about everything. Let’s try to stay factual and leave out the moralizing.

Well, the argument over the viability of the Green Party isn’t too relevant.  We each must contemplate where the best use of our own energy and commitments should be.

I have pissed various local Democratic position-holders off by pointing out that if they don’t get religion about reforming the Party, they could see a larger number of people like myself go over to the Green Party at some point.  I think that is the real threat that might put some energy into reform.  It is probably what caused the DNC to elect Dean as Chair.

So whatever works in the end to create a body of elected officials that are more responsive to reality and to the people at the grassroots level, is whatever works.

My personal strategy is something I find a lot of agreement with.  I am not ready to give up on the Party that has such a dynamic history just because our current situation is difficult.

The Party’s history shows that is can be very responsive and courageous. 

The problem we have now seems nearly impossible because we are dealing with huge paradigmatic forces we can only affect by increments.

The fact that most people’s minds are jacked into media that in turn is deeply invested in a corporate viewpoint, is a condition that Plato recognized as a human vulnerability when he described the cave scenario.

How do we get the American population out of Plato’s cave where it is enslaved?  How do we deal with the fact that most people would rather believe in entertaining lies than face the truth in a world where a Perfect Storm of global issues is gathering?

How do we encourage people to step forward into leadership positions who have the courage to face our true conditions? 

It doesn’t matter how we do this.  In the end, history will judge us on whether we got real in our time, or maintained our various fictions rather than deal with the issues that they now suffer from.

Here’s why I refuse to “transcend” my differences with my fellow Democrats:

When a US invasion of Iraq was AIPAC’s dearest wish, Barbara Boxer was all for it. Now that the Iraq war is a reality and it’s gone sour, she’s trying to jump on the anti-Iraq-war bandwagon.

Meanwhile, the clearest and most present danger is the current neocon campaign, also supported by AIPAC, to get the US to go to war against Iran for Israel.

And of course, she’s all for that.

F*** her and all the other Democratic “leaders” like her. She is vile. She is a traitor.

“Really and truly there is effectively no Green Party.”

Really and truly there IS actually a Green Party. Your continued denial that it exists and is, in fact, currently getting candidates elected to many offices at the local level, does not mean that it actually does not exist. You perhaps do not wish for the Green Party to succeed but for you to confuse your personal wishes with the reality of the situation is delusion. Did it ever occur to you that many of the people in the Green Party do not wish to work within or to attempt to reform the unredeemable Democratic Party? Republicans replaced the Whigs and Greens can and will, with or without you, replace the unreformable and unredeemable Democratic Party. VOTE GREEN!!

Reply to Comment #20902 by Stuart H on 8/31 at 9:27 am

Yes, I am in full agreement with your political strategy. The reform of the Democratic party, though extremely difficult, is still our best hope for progress, and I wish we could convince our friends in the Green and Peace and Freedom parties that this is so, because they could contribute so much to accomplishing this. By “reforming the Democratic Party”, I mean making it a real party of peace, as outlined in my wish list below. It sure does seem an impossibly long way from Hillary Clinton, etc. to what I’m talking about, though. All my money (such as it is) has been going to the Dean wing of the party. Now is the best chance we have had since the sixties to make some progress. However, wherever Green or Peace and Freedom party candidates have a chance to unseat a Lieberman/Clinton-style Democrat and replace him or her with a principled peace advocate, anyone who has peace at heart, including any progressive Democrat, should support such a candidate.  Greens who win congressional seats will presumably caucus with Democrats anyway. In return, the Greens and Peace and Freedom party should not run against progressive Democrats. In this way we can together form a broad peace front.

Really and truly there is effectively no Green Party.

Now, obviously there are a lot of people trying to create one and I admit that I have been tempted to step in, since I happen to have real local political experience, and contribute.

However, the Green Party as a vehicle for serious national progressive reform is not sufficiently developed to do anything but make
promises that can’t possibly be delivered.

Those who really want to register a protest vote should probably consider voting Green, but it is not going to be taken seriously by any of the people who actually get elected.

The Democratic Party is not easily reformed, this is true.  Over the past twenty five to thirty years, a lot of good people decided to let the consultants and those who were eager to assume positions in the Party control things,
because they didn’t think it worth the effort to get in there and win the debates. 

So what has happened is that the most mediocre people on the local scene in many localities are entrenched and see their duty as winning a “King on the Hill” game to keep their positions. 

To reform the Party, a pretty strenuous effort is required to move this “leadership” aside.

This is beginning to happen.  We saw a good amount of effort applied during the 2004 primary when supporters of Dean and Kucinich began to attend meetings and begin the reform process.  This continues with the
Lamont campaign and the effort to win House races and take control of Congress away from the Republicans.

This must continue.  True reform is not won easily, and there is about a quarter century of leadership mediocrity to clear away.

It might seem easier to start a new Party, but the truth is that these are the sort of problems that are just part of human nature.  A new political party will have the same old problems.  At root is a desire to have someone else take care of responsibilities for citizenship that really belong to each of us as individuals.  We can’t get away from that, and that is the lesson we must learn from looking at the results of the past.

To Tony Wisher:

Now, Tony.  We all know as a liberal you are once again standing on your head and telling the world it is upside down.  Of course you want common sense to go away—you are a liberal!  But it won’t.  Just like W.  He’s in dee White House, Tony, because the majority of people trust him—not your party—to fight terror.  You don’t want to fight terror, Tony.  You want to debate the point in the UN.  That’s why, Tony, you are not commander in chief.

Did you read your plan for Amrerica?  Astounding. With you as President, the United States of America would have a life expectancy of one day.  Our enemies want to to kill us, Tony—you too and You love them.  They will kill you in one micro-second.  As for me and my family, we will defend ourselves.  And so will the overwhelming majority of Americans, who are silent on this issue.  This website is a haven for frustrated liberals talking to themselves.  When someone like me (with a different opinion) shows up, you don’t know how to react, other than lashing out or hoping I go away. That’s why conservatives, in the end, when push comes to shove, will stay in power.  Tony your plan is just not realistic in today’s environmnet.  We have to defend ourselves.

Nice try, though.  And just for you, I’ll stick around.

WHAA…..WHAAA….the whimpering, whining of liberal Tony.  There, there, Tony. Let your Daddy help you. Calm down, little guy.  Stop your crying.  Baby want a bottle?  Here, suck on this.  There you go little fella, doesn’t that feel better?  Daddy knows what’s best for his babies.  Daddy W not only feels your pain, he does something about it.  Okay, big guy?  Feel better now.  That a boy! Tony, aren’t you glad Daddy W is here for you?

Paul White
In the Right

“There is no real point in supporting the Green Party at this point, because effectively, there is no such thing.”

What a ridiculous and silly comment. To find out how silly and incorrect it actually is go to httt://www.greencommons.org/ or http://www.gp.org/.

The Green Party (there actually is such an entity)is running candidates in all but a few states this year and is currently winning 1 out of every 5 races it contests. Unless you are a supporter of the corporate agenda or AIPAC or DLC or globalization, the Democratic Party is totally unredeemable. Vote Green!!!

Here’s what I wish the Democratic Party would do:

(1) Declare that the very idea of “War on Terror” is a stupid Bushism, and that this nation is in fact NOT at war. “Terrorism” is a matter to be dealt with by international police and international courts, which the United States will make every effort to strengthen, and will scrupulously abide by its rulings.

(2) Declare that it is will be U.S. policy to guarantee Israeli security only providing that Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) makes a transition to a multiethnic democracy with international security guarantees to replace the U.S. military alliance. 

(3) Last (and most ridiculous) Declare that the United States will henceforth not sell arms to any nation, period. Remove U.S. army bases from everywhere outside the U.S. where they are located.

Let’s really be a party of peace, what do you say?

Folks, this Paul White person is wasting our time. There is no possibility of any communication with him, just meaningless static. I suggest a policy of “no comment” to any of his posts. Maybe he’ll go away.

TO: Paul White

YOU still don’t comprehend economics,  shocking w/ that degree type.  Rest assured it is all about the $$$$$$.
Money never lies and neither does xxxxxx.  I’ll bet you are one of the “SMART” soles who bought stock on 3/10/2000 and “in the right”.  Did you enjoy the ride?  economics graduate ; was it a little enron; kmart; etc., etc.

The tooth fairy is coming to town, oh better watch out, you better not pout. And yes I’ll be thinking of you.

You stated and I quote:
“Floor trader, what’s your plan?”

I would NOT state same on a web site.

Just for YOU….more PROGRESS:
Insurgents kill 74 in Iraq as bloodshed mounts :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060830/ts_afp/iraq_06 0830141940

Thank you for honoring the brave soldiers (by listing them) who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we could have this exchange in our free society.  They and their families are to be revered.  All of our sympathy is with them.  They are true Americans—true patriots.  Their sacrifice is even more honorable because they volunteered (as either Guardsmen or enlistees).  They knew going in what the possible consequences could be.  They believed so much in your and your children’s and your children’s children ‘s freedom, that they nonetheless volunteered.  It was great of you to honor them.

But why did you then denigrate their names by, in the same message, putting me down?  It was as if you were just using them to further your agenda, your hatred of George Bush (I’m sure).  I served and was proud to.  From your comments, I suspect you did not.  A true patriot would not waste time putting me down.  One wonders if you are really an insipid weenie—loving the freedom to be able to put down others under a penname on a blog site, but not willing to serve, not willing to offer up your plan.  Just wondering—not saying that is the case. 

What is the case is your incessant need to denigrate, whine, compalain—the only thing liberals seem to be able to do.  Rather than put me down, why not follow up your honoring of the heros you listed with your plan.  What is it?

Mine is to not dishonor those you listed and all the others.  Mine is to not abandon our Iraqi friends.  Minbe is to not tell those trying to destroy the fledgling Iraqi democracy when we are leaving.  Mine is to ensure that Iraq can become self sufficient as a democracy.

What’s your’s?  Don’t put me down, just tell me what you would do.  Hilary and W and Joe Lieberman say we should stay the course?  They say that this is difficult with so many spineless whiners telling them to pull out now (war is not easy).  What say you?  Can you just address this issue without putting me down?  I say no.  Prove me wrong.

Payul White
In the Right

I certain your call to arms for Paul has been heeded. He’s enlisted for a tour in Mesopotamia. It’s inspiring to see men who put their booty where their pie hole is!

Wat to go, Paul White!

There is no real point in supporting the Green Party at this time, because effectively, there is no such thing. 

The Democratic Party is redeemable.  There are several problems that have to be addressed, which are not easily resolved, however.

A lot of people have bought the myth that there is no difference between Repubs and Dems and over the years, have withdrawn from voting or participating.  This has left the field to those whose perspective is narrowly concerned with establishing status within the Party and playing status games.  The intellectual leadership, by default, became the consultants who are concerned with paychecks and what keeps the gig going.

This has been going on long enough that the Party’s leadership cannot be persuaded that the grassroots interest in changing things is anything but a temporary phenomenon that will go away when the immediate excitement dies down.  This dynamic can change when enough people weigh in and make serious commitments. 

In a culture dominated by television, the fact is that a lot of effort is spent promoting “why bother?” 

The antidote is to promote an awakening of the body politick, which is what Scheer is really describing.  Hopefully the amazing lack of intellect and common sense of the Bush administration will result in a strong reaction from the smarter part of the American culture,
but with a grip on practicality.

The Bush/Halliburton scheme is apparently to work in a secretive fashion to set up a military empire to secure worldwide oil supplies to prop up American hyper-consumption.  One would think that they calculate on the public deciding at some point that this is the right strategy, because losing quality of life may create hysteria and panic.  At some point, the public may indeed go for demogogic leadership.  One hopes not.

But the problem I see with Democratic leaders and those who usually criticize them as well, is that there doesn’t seem to be anyone looking at the real big picture.  Iraq is a symptom of a more fundamental problem in our world, that of a future with declining oil and other natural resources. 

Do we prepare for war with China to keep our own access to oil from getting eclipsed, or is there a better 21st century strategy for leading the human race into the 22nd century?

There should be more vigorous debate in the public sphere about this and how Democrats could adopt strategies not beholden to the vested interests whose narrow views have crippled our ability to see and think clearly.

TO: Paul White

You stated and I quote:

  “While we are not home free yet (we are fighting a war), returning soldiers overwhelmingly (repeat: overwhelminly speak of the progress”—_____________________________________ _________
Since YOU are so willing to support george bush incomptence along with the MURDERS of these US Soldiers, the IED IRAQ Ritz Carlton is calling YOU to enlist NOW! 

The men listed below DIED within the past THREE DAYS. Further not all have been reported for these THREE days either,  wonder they can’t speak of PROGRESS!
______________________________________________

The data listed below is from this :
http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

2854 08/27/06 Hildreth, Seth A. Specialist 26 U.S. Army 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Reg, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division
2855 08/27/06 Dolan, Dan Private 1st Class 19 U.S. Army 1st BN, 23rd Infantry Reg, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division

2856 08/27/06 Cross, Kenneth Specialist 21 U.S. Army 1st BN, 23rd Infantry Reg, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division

2857 08/27/06 Smith, Tristan Specialist 23 U.S. Army Multi-National Division – Baghdad

2858 08/27/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not reported yet   U.S. Army Multi-National Division – Baghdad

2859 08/27/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not reported yet   U.S. Army Multi-National Division – Baghdad

2860 08/27/06 Jones, Joshua D. Specialist 24 U.S. Army 3rd BN, 67th Armor Reg, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division

2861 08/27/06 Champlin, Donald E. Lance Corporal 28 U.S. Marine 3rd BN, 2nd Marine Reg, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force

2862 08/27/06 Almazan, David J. Sergeant 27 U.S. Army 1st BN, 36th Infantry Reg, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division

2863 08/27/06 Hansen, Jeffrey J. Staff Sergeant 31 U.S. Air National Guard 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry, 1st BN, 34th Brigade Combat Team

2864 08/27/06 Benson, Darry Sergeant 46 U.S. Army National Guard 730th Quartermaster Battalion

2865 08/28/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not reported yet   U.S. Marine Regimental Combat Team 5

2866 08/28/06 Schneider, Matthew E. Specialist 23 U.S. Army 141st Signal BN, 1st Armored Division

2867 08/29/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not reported yet   U.S. Army Not reported yet

2868 08/29/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not reported yet   U.S. Marine 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division

For the daily reports of the great US DEMOCRACY currently present in IRAQ please see these links:

http://www.freearabvoice.org/Iraq/Report/report626.htm

http://www.freearabvoice.org/Iraq/Report/report625.htm

DEMOCRACY DEFINITION:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections;  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges  

FALLACY DEFINITION:
1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION
2 a : a false or mistaken idea b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

To all liberals, including the Floor Trader (#20462):

Sorry you believe that teaching an adult bible class is a “waste.”  But hey, you are liberals.  You stand on your heads and tell the world it is upside down. 

Floor trader (#20462) does what liberals do best—put others down.  Read the piece.  Absolutely, not one plan—one idea—one new thought—nothing more than bashing someone else.  Liberals being liberals.

As a Brown U econ major, I have no respect for Harvard economics 101. Two true stories, Floortrader, about Harvard economics 101.  As an undergraduate, I was chatting with two co-eds at a mixer in Cambridge.  They were 10s (one Radcliff and one Smith, as I recall).  An insipid wennie with a nasal twang (or dip—I mean drip) approached.  He was a Harvard undergrad who was interning for, you guessed it—Teddy K.  As a liberal, he relished himself God’s gift to the world and to women/men—I’m not sure.  He asked me in their presence, what school are you from, wanting to impress with his Ivy lineage, not suspecting I too would have an Ivy background.  Brown, I answered.  He laughed,then added what’s the color of horse shit?  He laughed at his own funny.  I then asked him, friend, as a Harvard man, what hand do you use to wipe yourself after defecating (he was so full of it, I just had to ask).  His quick retort—hey, I’m a left-leaning, almost communist Harvard guy—I naturally use my left hand.  I responded that, as for me, as a Brown gentleman, I used toilet paper.  The girls were on the floor with laughter.  The wennie, liberal, Harvard guy, tail between his legs, left whimpering and whining and muttering something about having to get to some project.  The Cliffer said she thought he lived in the Harvard fag house.  While that comment was mean (and probably untrue), I did dance the night away with both girls and later dated one of them for some time.

Harvard economics story number two.  After serving in the United States Army during the Vietnam era, I did not go to Hravard to get my MBA—went to another New England school instead.  A naval pilot friend did go to Harvard.  We would compare notes.  After a semester on the cost of capital, the Harvard prof told the class, forgot everything I said all semester, and in real life, just use 10%.  My friend paid (in today’s dollars), $10,000 to take that one course at Harvard and get that advice—just use 10%.  I paid $1,000 in today’s dollars and learned how to calculate cost of capital.  The problem for the Harvard guys today is that they can’t figure it out.  10% is no longer relevant.  W has the economy humming so well, you can no longer use a 10% number.  The 10% presumed Jimmy Carter with his 19% inflation rate would be president.

No, Floor Trader, I have little respect for Harvard economics.  What they teach there—Karl Marx and Jimmy Carter economics, lowering taxes is bad, etc., etc, socialized this and that—is no longer relevant.  Reagan got things under control and W continues the trend.  Besides, why take an Econ 101 from a school that will be wooped by Brown in the Ivy opener.  You’ve heard the song, “Who’s in dee White House…Bush, Bush..Bush.”  Well, Who’s the defending Ivy football champ…Brown, Brown…Brown.  Give me Brown Econo 101—lower taxes, give incentives to the rich so that they will create jobs for the poor, don’t give the poor a fish…rather, teach them to fish.  I know, I know.  This is way over liberal’s heads.

And finally—here’s the plan.

1. Lower taxes

2. Blockade Iran after August 31 (Iran will disregard UN edict.

3.  Stay in Iraq and Afganistan til those democracies can defend themselves.  Do not announce to enemy date of withdrawal, even if we have one.  Tell enemy we are staying forever.

4. If Iran does not comply with UN Resolution by Oct. 1, do not announce in advance, but just bomb with precision bombs the governemnet buildings of the current Iraqi regime.  The overwhelming majority of Iranian people, living in fear of this fascist governemnt, will be grateful.

5.  Continue to protect the US by whatever means possible.  If protecting our citizens is an issue, disregard the ruling by the Carter-appointee judge in Michigan.  We are at war,

6.  Try to convince liberals that we are at war with an enemy that wants to kill them.  Liberals are at war with their own country at the moment.

Floor trader, what’s your plan?  Are you capable of offering any ideas, or like your cohorts, do you just spew dribble that denigrates others?  Give it a shot, tell us YOUR plan.  Or are you too much of an inspid, liberal weenie? 

Paul White
In the Right

America’s blind, bipartisan devotion to achieving the Israeli right wing’s strategic goals for them, regardless of harm to ourselves and to the rest of the planet, constitutes a clear, present danger of such mammoth catastrophe that it dwarfs all other political issues. 

This is a matter of such urgency that I refuse to “transcend” my differences with any fellow Democrat who doesn’t understand this.

Really, people; in these dire circumstances, how can anyone give a fIying f*** about Social Security?

TO:  Comment #20349 by paul white

You stated and I quote:
  “Brown U economics graduate, MBA, business owner “

And after the degree YOU still believe the reason we are at war is democracy? Check Harvard they are savy for real economics 101.

Try again.

Money never lies and neither does xxxxxx.  I’ll bet you are one of the “SMART” soles who bought stock on 3/10/2000 and “in the right”.  Did you enjoy the ride?  economics graduate ; god help your ” in god we trust”.

You stated and I quote;

”  not to articulate new ideas, concepts, thoughts, plans of action.  “

Sound just like george w. bush…. 

You stated and I quote:

While we are not home free yet (we are fighting a war), returning soldiers overwhelmingly (repeat: overwhelminly speak of the progress—

yeap we are fighting a full blown CIVIL WAR, so Paul, come on over to the IED Iraq Ritz Carlton!  laughing all the way, so untrue, away from the eyes of bush and co…..PROGRESS is a grade F!

You stated and I quote:
  “Can’t you see that in the long run this will help keep peace in the mid-East.”

The tooth fairy is coming to town, oh better watch out, you better not pout.

I’ll keep you in mind!

Cheers,
The Floor Trader

RE: Comment #20349 by paul white on 8/28 at 3:13 pm

To the liberal readers who frequent this website

“I am a Vietnam era US Army vet, Brown U economics graduate, MBA, business owner and adult bible class teacher.”

What a waste!

http://www.yaleshmale.com/yaleshmale.php

The above link tells why this country kept making mistakes. Perhaps we need a standardize test to weed out unqualified presidential candidates.

To the liberal readers who frequent this website

I am a Vietnam era US Army vet, Brown U economics graduate, MBA, business owner and adult bible class teacher.

What strikes me about this piece is that it demonstrates why liberals just can not prevail on a national level.  It is nothing more than a liberal being a liberal. doing what liberals do best—whining, wimpering, crying, complaining, bashing Bush, bashing Santorum, etc.  It pulls plays right out of the ole liberal play book. 

The nature of a liberal is to denigrate, not to articulate new ideas, concepts, thoughts, plans of action.  When one can’t engage in the arena of ideas (because you do not have any good ideas), it is just natural to have to say something, so, you all just whine or bash Bush.

Of course there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  They were moved.  Let’s see liberals, everyone knew they were there.  It wasn’t that W lied to the UN.  The UN never believes Bush.  The Un knew they were there.  You all know they were there.  JohnKerry knew they were there.  What is the big deal about this?  they were used two decaqdes ago on the Kurds. So you all b elieve thatIraq went backwards?  It had them and used them 20 years ago and 20 years later had none?  DAHHH>>>if you weren’t so busy bashing Bush, you’d realize they were moved.

Second, aren’t you all glad that we are democratizing Iraq.  Can’t you see that in the long run this will help keep peace in the mid-East.  That’s why Lieberman and other thinking people support Iraq.  We all know that the media hates Bush and airs only the negative.  While we are not home free yet (we are fighting a war), returning soldiers overwhelmingly (repeat: overwhelminly speak of the progress—tell us what CNN can’t bring itself to because it hates W so much).

So, democrates will just beat each other up.  Meanwhile< Liberman will win in Conn as an independent.  Santorum will win in PA and the overwhelming silent majority will return to office those who have values and stand for something other than bashing Bush.

So don’t worry about the issue raised by Robert S.  It’s moot.  We are at war, and American is smart enough to know that it doesn’t want Nancy P., John K., Howard D., George S., Barbara S., the UN etc, etc, etc. protecting us in a real war.  That’s why when all the votes are counted, you will see conservatives still holding the house and senate, even in this off-year election.

Thank God for W.  Aren’t you glad he’s your Daddy?

Paul White
In the Right

RE: Comment #20244 by indePundit on 8/27 at 8:39 pm

<<WHAT A GREAT ARTICLE! >>

<< Unfortunately, the majority of responses to this stellar piece of journalism has been ridiculously off-topic.>>

The topic was Joe Lieberman’s support of the Iraq War. Joe Lieberman’s basic reason that underlies his support of the Iraq war is his congenital bond with Israel, which is the country that had good reason to fear Iraq. The Lieberman support of the Iraq war reflects his concern for Israel - not the United States. It therefore ought to be obvious that Israel, and its sordid history is indeed part of the topic of Joe Lieberman and Iraq.

<< To be clear, I am not disparaging the value of the input or the basis of logic in the opinions expressed here. >>

That’s nice of you to at least acknowledge the worthiness of what you have been able to read.

<< I am however, disheartened by lost opportunity to reflect on the central message of this writers profound observations and succinct wisdom. >>

I actually saw little profound in Scheer’s piece. But I think there was much profound in the thoughts expressed in the commentary. Maybe you need to broaden your perspective.

WHAT A GREAT ARTICLE!

Unfortunately, the majority of responses to this stellar piece of journalism has been ridiculously off-topic. To be clear, I am not disparaging the value of the input or the basis of logic in the opinions expressed here. I am however, disheartened by lost opportunity to reflect on the central message of this writers profound observations and succinct wisdom.

For some strange reason I thought that comments posted under a particular article would, or should, follow the theme of that particular message. Don’t we dishonor and/or trivialize the efforts of the author when we ignore the the intellectual arguments posed to us?

Yes, I do believe it is bad manners for readers to respond with commentary that does nothing to advance a legitimate consideration of the topic. But that’s not really the point. I certainly was not motivated to submit my first contribution here in order to preach forum etiquette. My disappointment is rooted in conviction that goes far beyond petty peeves.

I believe that our collective failure to rationally explore the potential significance of focused concepts, via debate and discussion, completely eliminates the required channels of analysis that could lead to the discovery and/or recognition of ground-breaking ideas. We could have stumbled upon the holy grail of dynamic political theory and nobody would even notice. We’re all so busy venting anger, proposing scenarios, declaring values, justifying opinions and fulfilling narcissistic agendas that we surrender both the opportunity and the means to facilitate the development of potentially powerful insights and suppositions.

It’s a damn shame. I really thought that Mr.. Scheer was on to something here. I was particularly impressed with the clarity, honesty and sensibility of his presentation. It’s a simple, yet searing message that should greatly resonate within our community and is deserving of serious evaluation. I mean who knows? This could lead to “the” defining position of consensus and commitment that topples the prevailing culture of corruption and helps to overcome the destructive acceptance of incompetence that dominates our current political landscape.

hmmmm
honesty and accountabily in government?
now that’s a concept that NEEDS to gain traction

Reply to Comment #20132 by Ion Constantine Laskaris on 8/26 at 12:17 pm

Further thoughts:

I don’t want to be unkind. I wonder if we couldn’t find some come common ground. Can’t we fight fascism together? My father was not Jewish (my mother was) and he was a great Nazi hunter in my eyes. I follow in his footsteps. Now the term “fascist” is rather loose. It was strange to hear Bush of all people talking about “Islamo-fascism” the other day, because I first heard the term coming from a left-wing Jew, who also considers Bush a fascist. When I heard that I thought, Mr Bush, I’m sure you’re too stupid and ignorant to have the slightest idea what a fascist is, but if you would like to know, try looking in a mirror. Somehow Bush looks a whole lot more like a real fascist to me than bin Laden. But hey, if you want to talk about Islamo-fascism, that’s all right with me. I have no use for anyone of any nationality, religion or ethnicity that advocates any form of violence. Non-violence is my first principle of political action. But I do call on you to to recognize the justice of the position of the Muslim people - not their leaders, but the people themselves. There must be a dialog between the Jews and the Muslims as peoples, not between their damn political leaders, who are all a bunch of warmongers. But it is up to each people to get rid of their own fascists. Here in America perhaps we will be making some progress in November.

I do not think the state of Israel can survive in its current form. Jewish security does not lie that way, only endless war. The way to Jewish security lies in the strengthening of international law and the protection of human rights. The Jewish people are perfectly placed now to make a historic contribution to the human race, perhaps their greatest ever. You may ask why so much should be expected of them. Are they not the Chosen People?

Here is a bit more history that ought to be   re-visited in view of the current debacle going on in Palestine. It is taken (paraphrased)from an excellent historical account of the early period of the Zionist movement.

In the 1920’s there was a faction in the Zionist movement called “Brit Shalom”, meaning the Covenant of Peace that advocated a single state bi-national Nation called Palestine in which there would be absolute political equality for both the Jews and the Arabs.

Its basic premise was that the long term survival of the Jews depended on finding a way to co-exist with the Arabs.

Brit Shalom maintained that their position reflected the essence of the original Zionist endeavor started by Theodore Hertzl in the   mid-1890’s, and that it was a very pragmatic concept. Brit Shalom was convenced that Zionism would fall into disaster if it fails to find common ground with the Arabs.

The spiritual leader of co-existence was a Martin Buber, the Jewish religious philosopher from Vienna who advocated the single bi-national state based on “the love for the homeland that both peoples share”.

The Mapam Party was formed in the 1940’s to advocate the single bi-national state.

In 1947 it lobbied the UN unsuccessfully to adopt the single state solution.

Unfortunately it did not have a strong standing in the Zionist movement that had followed the lead of the hard line zealots Chaim Wiezman and David ben Gurion - who were the leaders who established the mean-spirited aggressive posture of the Israel State that exists to this day.

Today, Naom Chomsky is the only voice still on the radar that carries on the argument for the only practical solution.

The above did not come from Chomsky

Reply to Comment #20132 by Ion Constantine Laskaris on 8/26 at 12:17 pm

“Israel is now surrounded West (with Gaza), North with Hezbollah, backed by Iran, + Syria, Jordan, the Saudis, and Egypt - Arab enemines all. Everyone of them is a degenerate and murderous nation. For this reason I think the Jews are entitled to a fair number of mistakes while they are fighting for their lives.”

There you go again, Mr. Laskaris. Calling your neighbors “murderous degenerates” is certainly no way to make friends with them. People with persecution complexes are always surrounded with enemies, whether real, imaginary or both.

RE: Comment #20132 by Ion Constantine Laskaris

<< “Obviously, to the victors belong the spoils, and they dictate the peace terms”. >>

Well, that is how Israel sees it, and they have been trying unsuccessfully to dictate the terms to the Arabs for the last 39 years. The problem is that the Israelis are not dictating “peace” terms at all. They are dictating “unjust” terms that will never be accepted, and in the meantime Israeli citizens must live a life of constant anxiety and fear.

If the Israelis (and you) think that is smart?), intelligent(?), advantageous(?) or pleasing to their God(?), they better resign themselves to eventual extinction, because even their God will not help them.

No nation can defy the world forever - which is something that the United States will also someday learn.

The rest of your post is not worth my time for comment.