Vidal writes, “I have never felt more ashamed being an American than when I saw how this debate was handled.” I’ve got to believe there’s a bit of hyperbole here, but I’m sure Vidal knows when to pepper his exhortation to action with exaggeration.  It trul ranks with some of the more awful moments in base politicking the U.S. has suffered.  Hillary and Barack both show symptoms of having been bought out.  With Hillary it’s a fore gone conclusion (shilling for Walmart, for example,) but for Barack: check out Krugman’s expose on 527’s.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opinion/24krugman.ht ml?_r=1&oref=slogin

Given the vitriol “people” like O’Reilly sling at Edwards...and given that Kucinich seems to be totally ecclipsed in the media, is ther hope in getting begind an Edwards candidacy?  I’d prefer Kucinich, but I sense the spark of success in Edwards.

#122344 by Ice on 12/24 at 9:47 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#122313 by nazilieskill.us on 12/24 at 4:45 pm
“This will sound weird. .....In my blank, unholy cloud of zerolumens, your cold black hatred is merely soothing emollient...”

MERRY CHRISTMAS, YOU TWO, UHH!!! http://www.truthdig.com/holiday/message/

#122265 by Non Credo on 12/24: “...hate and blood lust towards any nation that challenges Israel’s regional dominance and nuclear monopoly. They hate Iran even more than they love Israel. They desire vengeance more than they desire peace or happiness or anything else....”

Good morning, Eye-ran! Merry Christmas, Iran!

From the Caucasus, so-called cradle of European civilization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5PoedKBq-Y&feature =related

#122159 by Invade Iran Now! on 12/24 at 12:11 am

“Mr. Beck is a hard-core Perle-Cheney Republican, nearly peeing his pants over the expected excitement of seeing Iran bombed and in ruins.”
---------------

There are plenty of maniacally pro-Israel Democrats (like Lieberman and Tom Lantos) who are salivating right along with them. I’m not even sure these people have thought through the supposed “benefits” of this bombing. They may be just plain unhinged with hate and blood lust towards any nation that challenges Israel’s regional dominance and nuclear monopoly. They hate Iran even more than they love Israel. They desire vengeance more than they desire peace or happiness or anything else.

#122159 by Invade Iran Now! on 12/24: “Beck is a hard-core Perle-Cheney Republican, nearly peeing his pants over the expected excitement of seeing Iran bombed and in ruins....”

Think of a state about three times the size and population of California - and then go bomb it instead! Just do it on US soil and see how people like it or would react, uhh. After all, the USA IS a rogue nuclear weapons state......

#122079 by Kooch

Kooch,

You’re preaching to the choir on all of the stuff that RP says he wants to do. The Patriot Act, the habeas corpus, (are you referencing the Military Commissions Act when you speak to habeas corpus – you didn’t call it by that).

In short, what you’ve told me here about Ron Paul, I’ve heard before, at least a dozen times, and for now, that’s all it is. Talk.

Tell me how he feels about Guantanamo, and how he feels about the latest terrorist prevention act. And, we’re only going back 5 or so years on all of this.

Then, please (just for yourself, since I already know) explain why he wants to force prayer in public schools, (and prevent the Supreme Court from taking that up) and why he’s attempted to overturn or otherwise nullify Brown v. Board of Education, (which is a BIG DEAL – it was when it was decided, and it is VERY relevant today). Then, help me understand why he will do anything he can to nullify Roe v. Wade, which would drastically limit (or eliminate) a woman’s right to choose.

These are only a few of the many things that will affect or otherwise DISENFRANCHISE a very substantial number of Americans. It will OBVIOUSLY disenfranchise people of color. Right off the bat. It will equally disenfranchise women. Right off the bat.

Then, please tell me how RP is going to provide for the elderly population, dependent on social security, which is obtained from income taxes paid into the system by the CURRENT working population, since that’s how it’s been set-up. Tell me how we’re going to pay to educate our population, and please don’t give me the home school crap, because that’s disastrous. Even if I could hire Albert Einstein, I would not want my kids or any other, learning at home, without a clue to how anybody else in the world lives and interacts with each other.

How will he handle the health care crises, besides making it possible for Pfizer to mfg and distribute cocaine? (I’m all for legalizing it, but does big Pharma have to make the profit?)

Bottom line, I KNOW that Ron Paul is a racist, and so if you don’t, that’s fine with me. We’ll agree to disagree. But, don’t claim something that you don’t know. I say he is. And, there is enough proof from his own mouth, and in his congressional record, to convince me of that. (I also lived in that godforsaken place for years).

The last line of your post puts us right back to where YOU started with this whole thing, suggesting one should not choose based on the WRONG reasons. (and that should be true for ANY candidate). But, that’s exactly what you do here:

• I like the outsiders.  And I think you don’t get how much of an outsider Ron Paul is in the Republican party today.

I don’t care if you like outsiders, and while it works out that I frequently like ‘outsiders’ myself, I don’t get what that has to do with anything. Is that your reason for choosing him. Is that not really sort of …STUPID? Gee, I need an office mgr for my medical practice, so let me run down to the local KKK chapter, and see if I can find an ‘outsider’.

So, if YOU ‘like’ him because he’s an outsider, knock yourself out. I don’t choose presidential candidates based on whether or not they’re ‘outsiders’ or ‘insiders’ in THEIR OWN PARTY, which DOESN’T happen to be MINE, and never has been. 

My opinion of RP is based on HIS record, and I sure didn’t make the record for him. He’s been a politician a long time. He could claim to be a democrat all of a sudden, and I STILL wouldn’t like him, because it wouldn’t change his record, or his ideology, which is a racist one. This is a problem Kooch. It’s a problem for a large portion of the US population.

Please let us NOT have this discussion again. I told you what I KNOW about the guy, and it’s NOT GOOD!! I can’t change what the record shows that he is; it’s HIS record - not MINE. But, if he floats your boat – GO for it!

Just don’t try to sell ME on a bad bill of goods. I’m not suicidal. I care about my fellow HB’s as well.

Conservative Yankee writes, “The typical left-wing smear-jerkers” apparently in reference to my linking to wiki sites documenting some voting stats for the first three primaries’ states. 

That’s clearly over the edge.  You ought to take a moment to reflect on what you might be saying about yourself when make such a callous, non-sensical allegation. 

I take it from your moniker that you regard yourself as some kind of conservative.  These labels are so out of date, why cast your lot with such an absurd, quasi-defined category?

Did you hear about the British lady who was concerned that the U.S. is claiming the right to kidnap citizens off the streets of London.  “I wouldn’t want to be snatched by a Yank,” she said.

A rethinking of policy towards Isreal is not going to happen anytime soon in Washington.  What could happen in the meantime is for Americans to have more compassion for both sides in the conflict.  Someone here suggested that all Isralis immigrate to the US.  I endorse that idea completely.  I have often thought that we should have given them the state of Florida after WW2. Floridians could have been moved to California which was sparsely populated at that time.

The leadership of Isreal still consists of people who remember the holocaust.  That is the root of the paranoia.  There may be some hope of a settlement when a new generation assumes power.
But of course the jihadists will never be satisfied with anything.

#122047 by Conservative Yankee

Let’s see.  If you believe the polling machines (a gigantic IF) then Iowa voted for Gore in 2000 while NH and SC voted for Bush.  NH being the only New England state to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege200 0-Large-BushRed-GoreBlue.png

Apparently it took Iowa four years of unimitigated disaster to find Bush appealing, so they swapped places with NH in 04. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_m ap_electoral_votes.png

There are idiots out walking around in all these states, but SC may take the cake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

from #122036 by troublesum

“… nothing is going to be accomplished for Palestine as long as there is such hatred for Isreal.”
-------------

Cart before the horse. Hatred of Israel will not abate so long as Israel cleaves to its hateful ideology and behavior. As Scott Ritter has written, “Israel at present can have no friends, because Israel does not know how to be a friend. Driven by xenophobic paranoia and historical grievances, Israel is embarked on a path that can only lead to death and destruction.”

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ritter.php?articleid=12064

#122012 I think Nader is the best non-candidate we have.  I don’t remember writing anything about Isreal here but I believe that nothing is going to be accomplished for Palestine as long as there is such hatred for Isreal.  The conflict between the UK and Northern Ireland could only be solved when both sides sat down as equals at the negotiating table.  UK had carried out some heinous crimes in Northern Ireland, but I don’t remember any vilification of the UK here in the US.  Throughout their long history as an empire, the British have done some unspeakable things to native populations, yet none of this has ever been held against them in the US.  People who are always raving about Isreal probably have a very positive view of the UK in spite of its history.  People here are so emotional about Isreal which is very counter productive in achieving a solution to the conflict.
I recently saw on video Shimon Peres being interviewed concerning the conflict and he was really quite paranoid about Isreal’s enemies being out to destroy it.  And this is the left in Isreal talking.  I believe that hatred for Isreal is only going to feed that paranoia and make a solution impossible.  I used to think that an imposed solution was the only way, but now Isreal has nuclear weapons so that is out of the question.  There are some people here who think that Isreal controls the world.  This is really quite crazy.

I have enjoyed this discussion.  Cyrena has discussed the fervor with which some want to reshape the repugs.  Kooch alluded to the dems not acting like democrats.  It has be said that the DLC is repugs-lite.

What occurred to me as the first primaries are upon is:  These states:  Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina do not represent this country.  There are over 300 million (300,000,000+) of us in these United States.  If there are record turn outs approximately 300,000 people will massively impact the decisions concerning either “partys’” candidate.  All three of these states are hyper conservative.

The Iowa and South Carolina issues revolve around religion hence an anti-abortion and anti-evolution stance is de rigeur for the repugs.  Social Conservatives wish to turn the clock back in very unpleasant ways.  New Hampshire is a no tax state.  “Government got plenty of money ....”

The fact is that on the issues facing our country, if left to the majority, would have a progressive answer. This will be little noted nor acted upon during these first frenzies.  By having these states as the early “bell weather” samples it insures the status quo will prevail.

That we have had Dennis Kucinch, Dodd, Biden, Gravel and Paul in the mix moved the debated further than it would have been without.  John Edwards in the “top tier” has moved health care and other populist issues forward in the conversation.

It appears that the contest will be waged by different teams of the same club.  We really need to have democracy.

From #121861 by troublesum:

“Nader would be the best second party candidate.”
--------------

Oh really?

Troublesum, typical conventional anti-corporate liberal who - in complete contradiction of liberal values - habitually denies or minimizes the crimes of Israel, thinks he likes Ralph Nader. Well, maybe he didn’t see Ralph Nader’s damning assessment of Israel’s hateful assault against Lebanon last summer. Israel’s amen chorus in the US, including many “liberals”, denounced as anti-Semites any who dared to call Israel’s savagery what it was: terrorism.

Well then, troublesum can count Ralph Nader among those “anti-Semites”.

Nader writes:

“The calibrated Israeli terror bombing of Lebanon comes in three stages. With its electronic pinpoint precision bombing and artillery, the Israeli government goes after civilians, their homes, cities, towns and villages. Then after telling some to abandon their neighborhoods, it cuts population centers off from each other by destroying transportation facilities into and inside Lebanon, making both refugee flight and delivery of emergency relief efforts either impossible or very difficult. Then its planes, tanks and artillery endanger or destroy what food, water and relief efforts manage to get through to the injured and dying. Warehouse food supplies are incinerated. About four hundred small fishing boats north of Beirut on the oil-polluted coastline were demolished as well.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08152006.html

#121965 by Kooch

Thanks Kooch,

I really DO understand, and appreciate your response. I’m with ya. It’s fair enough to expect them to at least behave in character, (or as you mentioned the first time, in principle).

However, I should clarify that what YOUR post basically provided for me, (the parts that I referenced) was a crystallization of some of the OTHER posters, that have recently gone so far off the deep end. I think I referenced one, if not by name, from a post several weeks ago, (on Ron Paul). The guy had seemed reasonable enough for months in his posts, until I came to pointing out some of these issues with Ron Paul, at which point, he went berserk, beginning with the plaintive cry of, WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE!! (Because, as I’m sure you’ll agree, there IS no alternative to the current mob currently running on the GOP ticket, aside from those who are considering Ron Paul). And, I don’t see him as an alternative. Anyway, the guy just kept getting nastier and nastier.

So, THAT’S when it sort of ‘dawned’ on me, that at least for this guy, (and several others since), there is simply NO considering anyone other than a repug. And of COURSE they’re desperately frantic over what the neoconners are doing, and have been doing, because…they probably ALL VOTED for them, (both times) and now they just feel so incredibly stupid and betrayed, which makes them all the more frantic, and all the nastier. That is especially the case because I have brought out things about Ron Paul (and from day one really) that make a comparison to how I felt back in 2000, when everybody was convinced of GW’s ‘sincerity’. (he was sincere all right, cheney even more so)

So, it was really to those types that I was speaking, (not you per se though you did provide the framework for the types I referenced). I’m sure the posters who wear the shoes were able to see themselves.

Now I speak from both living this experience, (including 2 decades in TX) and from extensive study as well. So, this isn’t just me sprouting my own political opinion without substance. Let’s just say I have an ‘inside view’, including the skeletons many thought were buried. That’s why I’m really NOT being overly harsh on Ron Paul. If it comes across that way, it’s because it is what it is. I WILL concede that in his own mind, and within his own ideology, RP may very well think of himself as a ‘good man’ as you’ve called him, and obviously even a ‘man of the people’. Just not ALL of the people.

HOWEVER, RP is wedded to the old patriarchal ideology, and accompanying racism, that he may accept it as standard, and see nothing wrong with it. I mean, we can’t ignore the historical context upon which this nation was founded. And, we haven’t gotten over it yet, regardless of any laws that may have since come to be on the books. Morality can’t be legislated, nor can any person be FORCED to accept the equality of another human being. And surely, they will never GIVE UP those inherent advantages.

So of course he can and will go through the motions to avoid just coming right out with it. (although he actually HAS, in decades past, but it’s a political faux pas now.) Surely he’s smart enough not to make a Strom Thurmund type mistake.  Still, like any other politician, he plays to his base ideology. And, his base is suffering a-plenty from the actions of the neocons, which has deprived them of their privileged class status. When that happens, you see the issues that RP is addressing: The so called illegal immigrants, The so-called ‘quota’s’ that allow more of the minority to enter the mainstream, and on and on. Consequently, the minority population is NOT included in his ‘goodness’ or his visions. I think his record speaks to that, and you don’t even have to consider the Libertarian stuff, because that really IS a new

#121965 by Kooch

Thanks Kooch,

I really DO understand, and appreciate your response. I’m with ya. It’s fair enough to expect them to at least behave in character, (or as you mentioned the first time, in principle).

However, I should clarify that what YOUR post basically provided for me, (the parts that I referenced) was a crystallization of some of the OTHER posters, that have recently gone so far off the deep end. I think I referenced one, if not by name, from a post several weeks ago, (on Ron Paul). The guy had seemed reasonable enough for months in his posts, until I came to pointing out some of these issues with Ron Paul, at which point, he went totally off the deep end, beginning with the plaintive cry of, WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE!! (Because, as I’m sure you’ll agree, there IS no alternative to the current mob currently running on the GOP ticket, aside from those who are considering Ron Paul).

So, THAT’S when it sort of ‘dawned’ on me, that at least for this guy, (and several others since), there is simply NO considering anyone other than a repug. And of COURSE they’re desperately frantic over what the neoconners are doing, and have been doing, because…they probably ALL voted for them, (both times) and now they just feel so incredibly stupid and betrayed, which makes them all the more frantic, and all the nastier. That is especially the case because I have brought out things about Ron Paul (and from day one really) that make a comparison to how I felt back in 2000, when everybody (including some of my own extended family) were talking about how ‘sincere’ they thought GW was. Now, this had been stated in response to my calling that duo, (even before their campaign and judicial selection) the ‘dangerous duo’. I specifically elaborated to say that The Shrub was dangerous because he was so STUPID, and Dickie Boy Cheney was equally dangerous because he was NOT! (stupid). Evil yes, but not stupid.

So, it was really to those types that I was speaking, (not you, since I’ve not read or heard from you before). But, you did provide the framework, for the type that will simply not stray from the party. And, in this case, it comes with the inherent racism that this particular poster displayed, as a result of my comments on RP.

Now I speak from both living this experience, (including 2 decades in TX) and from studying it extensively as well. So, this isn’t just me sprouting my own political opinion without substance. And, that’s why I’m really NOT being overly harsh on Ron Paul. If it comes across that way, it’s because it is what it is. Now I WILL concede that in his own mind, and within his own ideology, RP may very well think of himself as a ‘good man’ as you’ve called him, and obviously even a ‘man of the people’.

HOWEVER, RP is so wedded to the old patriarchal ideology, and accompanying racism, that he may accept it as standard, and see nothing wrong with it. I mean, we can’t ignore the historical context upon which this nation was founded. And, we haven’t gotten over it yet. True, the laws finally came around, so at least there’s something “on the books” that recognizes racial segregation as illegal and immoral, but morality can’t be legislated, nor can any person be FORCED to accept the equality of another human being. And surely, they will never GIVE UP those inherent advantages.

So of course he can and will go through the motions to avoid just coming right out with it. (He’s smarter and more polished than a Strom Thurmund). But the fact of it is that Ron Paul doesn’t have ALL Americans in his ‘vision’ of the American people. Nor does he see any of the non-white population included in that “liberty and justice for ALL’ part of the pledge. In that respect, he is VERY wedded to the original Constitution.

And, I would have to insist that a close look at his record, clearly shows that. He may not be advocating the re-enslavement of the minority population, but he’s not a damn bit about sharing any survival resources.

This marionette dance of democratic pretense is so painful...perhaps we need to appeal to the plant world for help.  A complex system of alkaloids and may possibly interact with our own nerve endings to produce some ameliorative effect.  Politics is the opium of the narco-traffikers in the CIA. This alien has clamped on to our collective head and thrust its reproductive organ down our collective throats.

1o2 reply#121921 by VillageElder

VillageElder,

Thanks for your excellent submission. I’d like to quote you from time to time. It also ties up what I’ve finally realized in its full spectrum, just from past readings from the broad range across this forum, (including the tired arguments) and the more literate that can make sense of it. John Dean’s “Conservatives Without A Conscience” was very helpful, when I read it a couple of years ago.

What I picked up earlier, (or, maybe it all fell very much into place again) was from the piece posted by Kooch @#121692

This jumps out at me, because while it is stuck in the midst of a bunch of BS, I think it tells the story:

• Supporting Ron Paul is about shaking up the current system. Its about attacking and attempting to reshape the Republican party while it is weak. The neocons are on the ropes.

That’s what it comes down to. It’s about SAVING the REPUGLITHAN PARTY, from the band that has so dissolved it. It first occurred to me some weeks ago, when a regular poster responded on another thread, to these very obvious issues with Ron Paul. The response had what I can only describe as a kind of desperate or plaintive note to it. It was…”But what are the ALTERNATIVES?”

Because, in his mind, there was no considering a NON-repuglithan. And so, among the choices available from THAT party, he just didn’t see any other hope. It never occurred to him, (and wouldn’t) to look at a different batch or selection. It HAS to be a repug and so…what do we do?

The same guy goes to purchase a new car. He’s always and ONLY driven a Ford. Anything other than a Ford, cannot be considered. So, while Ford may have produced nothing but really horrific cars over the past decade, becoming progressively worse year after year, he’ll still confine himself to looking for what appears to be the least worst of the lot.

NEVER, EVER, could he look at or consider a DIFFERENT make. (forced to choose a different model maybe, but NEVER a different MAKE). So, it HAS to be a repug, because that’s just what and who he is. The basic principles by which the repugs have stood for the past half century at least, is all that they can support, and that is the ‘individualism’, which really means, ME and MINE, and nobody else

They call it, “individualism’ and independence, (as you mentioned with Abraham Lincoln because he was indeed obsessive about that independence). Ironically enough, they don’t mean the same sort of ‘independence’ that we think of as independence, (or at least some of us) which is independence of thought and ideology, or new ways of accomplishing things in/on an undated terrain or varied conditions. Nor do they have a clue to how very DEPENDANT they actually are, on the very ones they are so anxious to exclude. (grow their own food, educate their own children, make their own clothes, ignore highways/byways/commercial transportation?)

But, these ‘types’ will not ever consider looking at a Chrysler product, even though they know that the Fords are overall rotted out. Rather, they’ll pick the best make of the rotten lot, and they’ll put some lipstick on it, or maybe a few new wheels, (oblong instead of round) and call it something else, (Libertarian) and hope for the best, without ever considering the parts that don’t have any answers.

TBC

2 of 2 reply to 121921

Kooch goes on, (@121692) which reaffirms… that it’s all about ‘the party’.

• Of course, no one can turn the Republican party into a lefty progressive party. And while the party may be currently weak, you can’t kill it. They will be in power again. Supporting Ron Paul is about reforming that party before they can regroup and whitewash their neo-con crimes again.  Its about forcing them back to their principles. The GOP is supposed to be about minimizing government and maximizing personal freedom. –Good principles if ya ask me, but ones they abandoned long ago.

So, there we have it again. It’s about the GOP, and allegedly minimizing government, and maximizing personal freedom. But, neither he nor any genuine repug, actually MEANS, personal freedom for ALL, nor do they want to be done with government entirely. They DO want government to protect their INDIVDUAL interests, when it means protecting their privileged status, and privileged access to the common resources. He admits the mentality here, in saying that the GOP can never be a ‘lefty’ (I really resent the term) or a PROGRESSIVE party. And, who could be more REgressive, than Ron Paul?

No, they will never be a progressive party, because it means becoming inclusive, and it means adjustment to the terrain of the 21st Century. They will reject that at all costs, even it if means shooting themselves in the foot, with a Ron Paul.

Instead, they’ll just hope, (or pray) that they fall into or remain in a ‘privileged’ state or demographic area, during their own INTERNAL ‘shake-up’. Once the dust settles (they figure) and Ron Paul has rid them of the neo-cons who have NOT protected their privileged status, and allowed them to fall to the same level as the ‘others’ – the ‘outcasts’, the ‘lefties’ or the ‘unequals’, then all will be well. And, like he said, they’ll be back in POWER again. (at least that’s the hope/prayer)

That’s what it’s all about.

I see the same tired arguments about central government and implying interference with individual’s lives and choices.  This is the cant and verse of “conservative” dogma.  Interestingly enough the greatest interference has come about under the Regan Bush continuum.

Under the guise of restoring morality restrictive legislation has been pushed for and passed which restricts the right of privacy in appeasement of the anti-abortion cartel.  This of course had been agitated for by the religious right to whom Regan and Bush 1 & 2 owed their elections.  This imposed a minority position restricting the rights desired by the majority of the public.  Repuglicans are fascinated, in deed obsessive, about the bedroom behavior of others.

Libertarian rhetoric aims at reducing the size of the central government, extol “states rights” and, suggest a image of life as espoused by Ayn Rand.  The invisible hand described by Adam Smith will solve all problems if we just let the market work its magic.

Central government serves many purposes in keeping our country coherent and functional.  Uniform standard for education come to mind.  Repugs are always complaining about the federal involvement in education unless it is their involvement.  By having uniform standards for such things as roads, education, transportation and other items of modern life, e.g. electrification we create a society that in some ways minimizes the disadvantages imposed by geography.

Thomas Jefferson envisioned an America based on small agricultural operations owned and operated by a family.  He thought we should eschew the trappings of Europe such as large cities.  Americans should be independent and self sufficient.  A pastoral fantasy that was fading in the 18th century.  Today such a life style would be virtually impossible.  The majority of Americans live on the coasts and usually within two miles of an interstate.  Growing one’s veggies and chickens is a bit out the the question.

Under the guise of returning to a simpler life attacks are made on legislation supported by the majority.  Attempts to restrict or repeal Brown vs Board of Education are a continual theme under the guise of “state’s rights” or “local control.” Constant whining about “quota systems” in an attempt to repeal the Equal Opportunity Act.  I would suggest you read it before writing about it.

The libertarian desire would take us to the future discussed by Jefferson.  The neocons want power and will do anything to get it, hold it and impose it.

Rue Paul does not distance himself from the neocon agenda sufficiently.  Looking at his stands and legislative record at best he might be neocon-lite. 

We are an interdependent society.  We have a social contract between ourselves and with our government.  This contract has grown through legislation, common practice, case law and treaty.  Attempts to turn the clock back to Dickens’ England economically and socially are delusional at best.