BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:33 PM

Dear Guest,

Here's the question then, and it's a very legitimate one:

Are you willing to DIE for your beliefs? To face a line of cops or Guardsmen, knowing that they are capable of blowing the top of your head off? Or beating you bloody, literally breaking your bones with their clubs?

Because, Dear Guest, you might be nonviolent, but the world isn't.

So...the dead don't do much except rot. And neither have you. You quote your betters, people like Dave Dellinger, and mouth the same tired old bullshit that tools like you have mouthed before.

Because you are a tool, Dear Guest. You're a stooge for Ashcroft and Company, and you're attempting yet again to get Mudcatters to incriminate themselves. What's in it for you, fink? A good performance appraisal? A letter of praise from Johnny Ashcroft?

You slimy Ashcroft tool.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:50 PM

I couldn't disagree more with your assessment Don.

If Bush wins, it will certainly galvanize the Democrats, and possibly their traditional allies like the big unions, to do some long overdue self-examination about how they are failing the American people. If Bush wins, and the war drags out, you will certainly see many more poor and working poor people in the streets, demonstrating against the Republican policies of scarcity and war mongering, because it is the poor and working poor who are the cannon fodder in the war on terrorism, just as they are the cannon fodder in the class wars of our Wal Mart economy. Now THAT would mean something significant in the long run.

If Nader, or Nader and Cobb combined, are able to pull at least 7% of the vote in enough states, the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clinton/Kerry Democrats, who are a tiny minority in the Democratic party, will lose power. The Democratic Party base will simply throw them out. That too would be A Very Good Thing.

Nader nor Cobb can win. But they can be very effective spoilers, which is why they are running. What a better than expected showing by them will do, especially if Bush is re-elected, is galvanize the progressive left inside and outside the Democratic party. That too, would be A Very Good Thing.

On the other hand, if Kerry wins, the DLC and the corporate interests backing the Democratic minority, maintains their vise grip on the Democratic party, and keeps a lock on all the funds that should be much more widely dispersed to the various parties on the progressive and radical left. It keeps the rich white men running the country, running the country, regardless of how populist the rhetoric of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and John Edwards. Very little substantive change would happen, because for substantive change to happen the Patriot Act would have to be repealed, as would GATT, NAFTA, etc and a moratorium on defense spending would have to occur to reverse the looting of Social Security, and the out of control deficits.

Kerry will do essentially the same thing that Bush will: he will ignore the needs of the majority of the American people to invest in OUR nation's infrastructure and OUR nation's true economic security. That won't be done by slapping a few corporate outsourcers who funded the Republicans on the wrist, then looking the other way while corporations and corrupt government officials selfishly continue playing their revolving door government service/private sector game at the expense of our nation, our planet, and the world's citizens.

Electing Kerry will do nothing for the now disastrous Middle East, as he is plainly on the record in support of Israel and Sharon's policies. He is plainly on the record to stay the course in Iraq. He is plainly on the record to maintain the levels of military industrial spending that are bankrupting our nation. As far as the oil wars go, hell--Kerry proudly and defiantly continues to thumb his nose at those of us who would raise an eyebrow over his Harley fixations. As far as peace goes? This man is a blatant militarist. You simply cannot deny that in the face of the election propaganda he continues to pump out to prove his national security machismo.

So vote for Kerry if you must. But just don't expect that everyone else will follow your lead, or stay silent about the artifice of Kerry's so-called "progressive" agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:50 PM

"because you think the best way to bring about change is by working within the system, and I think the best way to do it is by agitating for change from outside the system, doesn't make you right and me wrong."

Yes, it does make you wrong Guest. You can't change something you aren't working with.

"the problem I have with the absolutists like you."
Don't look now guest, but it seems you are being he absolutist. You completely dismiss the idea that Kerry can bring about change and you do not wish to listen to those that feel he can.

"getting rid of Bush is far from my top priority right now. My top priority continues to be work to bring about the profound changes our society, the world's citizens, and the planet needs if we are to provide anything worth inheriting to future generations.'
Then by not backing Kerry you will insure PROFOUND CHANGES in our society. Bush will be re-elected and the changes he has started will only continue and there won't be anything worth inheriting. Nice going you selfish bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 08:06 PM

I will patiently await John Kerry's and John Edward's strong statements condemning the so-called Free Speech Zone, and the harrassment and intimidation of political dissenters by the national security police forces.

I will wait patiently for strong statements from Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, and new Democrat darling Obama condemning those Nazi tactics too.

To no avail, I'm sure. They are all too busy being wined and dined by their corporate meisters at those fancy big money machine parties on yachts in Boston Harbor to worry about today's Boston Tea Party protests.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Peace
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM

If democracy really worked, we wouldn't need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 08:20 PM

Are you nuts Guest? Why would any candidate protest the Free Speech Zone?   Sure your view is jaded against Kerry & the two party system, but do you think Nader embraces criticism?   Hardly!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 09:04 PM

If you want to know how Nader embraces dissent, simply check the record when his employees tried to organize. He was no better than any other union buster. So much for his credibility ..... and yours, GUEST. Especially your comment earlier in this thread about your union brothers and sisters. Go to the symphony and leave the debate for those that really care.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 01:22 AM

GUEST,

The reason this convention does not look radical is that they actually want to win the election. They do not live in the fantasyland you inhabit where it doesn't matter if you win an election as long as you "radicalize the middle class."

The problem with the radical left is that it is essentially disorganized--it is disorganized as a philosophical principle--and could therefore never win an election, let alone run a country. Therefore, all this talk about "we'll get Bush back in office and radicalize the Democrats" is a bunch of hooey. Radicalized Democrats would be that much easier to defeat.

In any case, a Bush victory might convince Democrats to move to the RIGHT instead of the left. If Bush in office was supposed to radicalize the Democrats, how come Kucinich wasn't nominated this time out? What Democrats were convinced of was that they needed an "electable" (read: NOT radical) candidate. Why should four MORE years reverse this?

Finally, Kerry has a better record on the environment than any other senator; and that's not because they're all horrible, it's because according to environmental groups he is really, really good.

As for condemning the Patriot Act, here's where you show your ignorance. The Patriot Act was enacted as a temporary set of regulations which phase out if they are not renewed. As legislation that is already passed, the President has no say in it anymore. Therefore there is no point in his talking about the Act. If elected, he can't do anything about it, and it will vanish anyway.

Bush, on the other hand, is talking about extending or making permanent key provisions of the Patriot Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 08:57 AM

There are much more important things at stake than the presidential horse race. I've no intention of 'radicalizing the middle class' as you suggest Nerd. The middle class has long been a lost cause politically. They are, after all, the people who put Bush in the White House.

Now the Democratic Leadership Council Democrats like Big Mick and yourself, do want to believe that Bush being in the White House is all Nader's fault. Big Mick is the Democrat propaganda party line when it comes to Nader. He spouts every lie and myth told by the party--it is all so dull and predictable. But the truth is, Bush is in the White House because the Democrats couldn't get enough votes to decisively defeat Bush. If they had the country behind them, the Florida debacle never would have happened, the Supreme Court would never have intervened, and they wouldn't be guilty today of ignoring all the African American voters disenfranchised in the 2000 election to keep their votes from being counted. Not one Democrat stood up for the African American voters. Not one.

And I'm sorry to disappoint you Nerd, but if you think the radical left is in business to win elections, you are sadly mistaken. The radical left is in business to further an agenda of social and political change. Some leftists do electoral work, but most don't. We work in ways that puts pressure to bear on the political system, but that doesn't mean we participate beyond voting or occassionally working for progressive candidates.

More myths and lies from the middle class mainstream is what I'm seeing here, but no one talking about the issue raised in this thread: official censorship of political dissenters at the highest levels by the Democratic Party. Treating the progressive wing of the Democratic party as terrorists and criminals.

I am obviously now willing to pay the price you are willing to pay for victory and putting that pathetic excuse for a candidate in the Oval Office. Demonizing and criminalizing political dissent in order to win will never be the answer.

But I'm sure I can't scare you guys, you're sticking with the empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:15 AM

Bush-Ashcroft-Ridge stoolie.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: InOBU
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:36 AM

A good time to remember good ol' Phil

Thomas Paine and Jesse James are old friends
And Robin Hood is riding on the road again
We were born in a revolution and we died in a wasted war
It's gone that way before
The dogs are chasing chicken bones across the lawn
If that was an election, I'm a Viet Cong


Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:50 AM

You know, John Kerry said some time ago now that Democrats shouldn't be spending any time whatsoever attacking Nader. That instead, Democrats who interact with Nader supporters, should be giving Nader's supporters all the reasons why they should vote for John Kerry instead.

Even Kerry recognizes that this intense Nader bashing is going to backfire and blow up in the face of the Democratic party. Why? Because it is just plain more bashing of the progressive movement in this country. It isn't about just demonizing Nader. It is about demonizing the progressives and their agenda. Because mainstream Democrats like the Mudcat majority, aren't nice, generous people, unless it is with the people who look like them, talk like them, worship like them, and who are in the same economic and racial group as them.

Mainstream middle class Democrats are just as mean spirited and selfish as mainstream middle class Republicans in that regard. Which is why the middle class voter is a lost cause.

The people who truly need to be convinced to vote for Kerry, besides progressives who will vote for Nader or Cobb, are the disenfranchised and disempowered 50% of the electorate that both parties do their best to keep out of the voting booths. The poor and the working poor. John Edwards played that game last night in his speech--he used the proper middle class buzz words--strong military and welfare reform. Poor and working poor people know what that means. The bucks that should be going to social services for the poor and working poor are going to the military industrial complex, straight from the Kerry White House.

Poor and working people aren't stupid. They know the system works against them, not for them. People of color know it too, which is why in a Cleveland precinct with 96% African American population, only had 13% of the eligible voters turn out in the 2000 election. They already know the game is being played without them being allowed to participate. Michael Moore gives a glimpse of that game in his film, when he shows Al Gore gaveling the Black Congressional Caucus back to their seats while the white Congressional members stare stonily in silence. That footage could just as easily have been shot in 1930 as 2000.

And yes, it is true that the Republican party is gathering all the signatures necessary to put Nader on the ballot in the swing states. Not because that is what Nader wants, or what Nader needs. They are doing it for the same cynical reasons that the Democratic party is bringing lawsuits in those same swing states, challenging the Nader petitions to keep him off the ballot.

In other words, the corporate two party system is destroying the integrity of the third party system now, along with everything else they have destroyed so far. Just to win. Just to fucking win the horse race. These sorts of things are heart breakingly sad developments in American politics. The orchestrated, racist disenfranchisement of African American voters by both parties. The cynical, manipulative disenfranchisement of third party voters by both parties. Anyone who tries to empower those who didn't vote in 2000 is being met with incredible force by the two parties. I am on the side of those disenfranchised voters. Kerry represents the enemies of democracy to us, pure and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:50 AM

Geez, can't you see through this??? Look at the arguments GUEST is using and the language GUEST is using when cornered. GUEST IS REALLY

DICK CHENEY ! ! !

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:14 AM

"Michael Moore gives a glimpse of that game in his film, when he shows Al Gore gaveling the Black Congressional Caucus back to their seats while the white Congressional members stare stonily in silence. That footage could just as easily have been shot in 1930 as 2000."

Guest, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!!   Either you don't know the story behind that or you are nothing more than a Rush Limbaugh spin doctor.

A Senator could easily have signed the order.   If that happened it would have gone to a vote in the Senate. It would have split down the middle and the deciding vote would have gone to the Speaker - none other than Al Gore. Gore did not want to be in the position of making himself the President of the United States.   There was a reason why ONLY the black caucus protested.   They were disenfranchised. That is the point of the whole scene.

Why is it that whenever someone says something negative about Nader you call it "bashing" but you feel it is alright to bash Kerry. If you are progressive (which I sincerely doubt), you know you can't have it both ways.

Guest, you are nothing more than a baiter. You've given wrong information several times and never addressed it when you were called on it. You spew your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. You come across as being so self-righteous. The closest you've come to a protest has been watching one on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:17 AM

And the reasons for voting for John Kerry instead of Ralph Nader or David Cobb are...???

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:33 AM

I don't know how many of you are getting the excellent convention coverage by Democracy Now! Today, they did an excellent piece titled "The Other Convention: Scrubbed Speeches, Excluded Voices and the Crackdown on 'Peace Delegates'".

One of the stories they broke yesterday was of one of the peace delegates being handcuffed and dragged from the convention floor by national security police, for unfurling an anti-war banner.

Today, they are talking with the Democrats who aren't being allowed to address the convention. They include Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the only US senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and Representative Maxine Waters, one of the most radical members of the Black Congressional Caucus.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:35 AM

GUEST, 29 Jul 04 - 08:57 AM: "I've no intention of 'radicalizing the middle class' as you suggest Nerd. The middle class has long been a lost cause politically. They are, after all, the people who put Bush in the White House."

Oh, Golly! There I go again! Now where did I get the impression that GUEST wanted to radicalize the middle class? Oh, yeah...

GUEST, 28 Jul 04 - 04:45 PM: "I think we need four more years of Bush to radicalize the middle class liberal movement to get their asses out of their chairs, off the internet, away from their cushy middle class jobs, investment portfolios, and gourmet lifestyles, and start taking some risks for what they believe in."

So, let's see. Is the Middle Class a lost cause, or is the whole point of GUEST's attempt to re-elect Bush to influence the middle class? Even GUEST doesn't know!

Come on GUEST. If you can't even figure out your OWN position how do you expect anyone else to make any sense of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:35 AM

And I suppose it is just coincidence that Jesse Jackson, who gave a scathing, rabble rousing anti-war speech, wasn't allowed to speak during prime time this year?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:37 AM

Neat little trick there, GUEST. I have always said that you are a bright person, with a good deal of knowledge into debate tactics. But so am i. So I hope you won't mind if I expose you when you use them.

I gave you a specific allegation with regard to Nader's use of union busting tactics. You attempted to deflect a specific allegation by saying that I just spread myths. That is using the general to deflect the specific in the hope that it sways someone. So if you are right, you should be able to disprove my myth. But you cannot. That is because it is true. Your warrior for radical change is no better than the corporate elite you want to knock off. But it gets worse. He is using those self same corporate elite to gather signatures to get on ballots. Now why would a noble warrior of left wing radical change, driven by his honor code, do this? It is because he is the same as those you decry. That is our system. Do you think that, were he successful, or even when he is not successful, that the piper won't demand to be paid?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 10:58 AM

"And the reasons for voting for John Kerry instead of Ralph Nader or David Cobb are...??? "

www.johnkerry.com

Read what he stands for.    While there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, John Kerry stands for the changes that most Americans need and want. Ralph Nader and David Cobb speak to some important issues, but their field of vision is too narrow.

A lot has been made of George Bush and his reaction on 9/11. We watched the commander in chief freeze.   Personally, I think Nader and Cobb would have done the same. I feel that Kerry would have reacted differently and effectively which could have resulted in fewer lives having been lost that tragic day. We might have been able to deal with Osama and his gang differently and more effectively stopped their brand of terroism. We might have been able to remove Saddam without the bloodshed.   John Kerry has ideas for making changes that Nader and Cobb have not addressed satisfactorily.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 11:24 AM

Nope Big Mick, you are the one playing games. Look at the title to the thread. It isn't about Nader and his union busting tactics. It is about your boys bullying anyone on the block who disagrees with them.

Look, it is as simple as this. The Democratic party abandoned it's working class, union base thirty years ago. Of those working class voters who still vote (and the majority haven't in decades, and fewer and fewer of them vote in each election), they now bizarrely vote against their own self-interests economically, just to punish you middle class liberal bastards. It is their rightward swing that handed the Republicans the opportunity these last thirty years, to shove the politics of hate down the world's throats. I blame middle class liberals like you, Big Mick, for that. Not the poor working stiffs you and your ilk abandoned by the side of the road to your prosperity at our expense.

It is all about the one thing no good Democrat will mention nowadays: the class wars. Working class voters whose lives have been materially worsened by the conservative policies they have supported is a very uncomfortable fact for middle class union organizers like you, and one we have trouble talking about in a straightforward manner because of your need to obfuscate you and your ilk's failing the people who counted on you to see their interests were the nation's interests.

But now that privatization, deregulation, and de-unionization are hitting the middle class, you expect the working class voter to come to your aid, and bail you out this election year. You do it by insulting their political choices of voting Republican and conservative, every chance you get.

Who is to blame for this landscape of distortion, of paranoia, and of good people led astray to support conservative Republicans? Though working class voters have chosen self-destructive policies, it is just as clear that liberalism deserves a large part of the blame for that working class backlash phenomenon. Liberalism may not be the monstrous, all-powerful conspiracy that conservatives make it out to be, but its failings are clear nonetheless. Somewhere in the last three decades, liberalism ceased to be relevant to huge portions of its traditional constituency, and conservatism won them over.

Why?

The Democratic party. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and Terry McAuliffe, has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, college educated white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. Rather than educate and organize, they whipped out their checkbooks, recruited the rich away from the other party with promises to feed caviar to the them, instead of buttering the bread of the workers the rich depend upon to feed their wealth.

And then you demonized the working class for being ignorant on social issues. The most cynical and manipulative example of how that was done was school busing to enforce desegregation in Boston. Your party pitted the working class Irish against the working class African American, and made them fight over the scraps on national television. Then you kicked the Irish in the teeth for being "racist", and walked away.

Thomas Frank is the editor of The Baffler magazine, and author of the book "One Market Under God". He describes what the Democratic party is doing today like this:

"The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies, "New Democrats" think, is to stand rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation, and the rest of it. Such Democrats explicitly rule out what they deride as "class warfare" and take great pains to emphasize their friendliness to business interests. Like the conservatives, they take economic issues off the table. As for the working-class voters who were until recently the party's very backbone, the DLC figures they will have nowhere else to go; Democrats will always be marginally better on economic issues than Republicans. Besides, what politician in this success-worshiping country really wants to be the voice of poor people? Where's the soft money in that?"

You demonize the "class warfare" and you demonize the rabble rousers like me and other true progressives--phonily and disingenuously chastising of me for swearing for instance--and appearing to be Mr. Royal Nice Progressive Union Man and Irish Bard. But you are a phony, like all your middle class Democrat friends. You look upon the working class voter with arrogant contempt, while you and your liberal buddies sit around congratulating yourselves on your personal virtue rather than do the dirty work of movement coalition building the conservative right is willing to do to win the hearts and minds of Middle America.

The Republican right wing in power is the price being paid in America today for your liberal virutuousness.

That Republican right wing has all the things the Democratic left once used to hold onto power for the majority of the 20th century: the integrity of living their lives in accordance with their values. It isn't their values that are admirable. Their values are detestable. But the fact that they are willing to walk their talk is what makes all the difference.

The Republican right now has the foundations channeling their millions into the political battle at the highest levels, subsidizing free-market economics departments and magazines and thinkers. They have the think tanks, the Institutes Hoover and American Enterprise, that send the money sluicing on into the pockets of the right-wing pundit corps, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, and the rest, furnishing them with what they need to keep their books coming and their minds in fighting trim between media bouts. A brigade of lobbyists. A flock of magazines and newspapers. A publishing house or two. And, at the bottom, the committed grassroots organizers, those working class voters that used to be hard core Democrats, going door-to-door, organizing their neighbors, mortgaging their houses even, to push the gospel of the conservative backlash against the liberals who abandoned them and the America they built with their blood, sweat, and tears.

That Republican right wing movement speaks to those at society's bottom, addresses them on a daily basis. You and your ilk don't. You ignore them, and focus on the glitterati of corporate America instead. From the liberals, the Republican grassroots hear nothing but contempt, but from the reactionary conservatives, they get an explanation for it all. Even better, they get a plan for action, a scheme for world conquest with tailor make wedge issues. And why shouldn't those Reagan Democrat working class voters get to dream their lurid dreams of politics-as-manipulation? They've had it done to them by the so-called liberal Democratic Party enough in reality.

So here is where I think America is headed with John Kerry and the Democratic party in control of the White House. Maybe instead of being a laughingstock, the working class Reagan Democrat who now supports the Republicans, is actually in the vanguard. Maybe what has happened with those "Bubbas" the liberals love to point and wag their fingers at, is that they are pointing the way in which all our public policy debates are heading. Maybe someday soon the political choices of Americans everywhere will be whittled down to the two factions of the Republican Party. Whether the moderate Republicans will still call themselves "Republicans" then or have switched to being Democrats won't really matter: both groups will be what the media whores now call "fiscal conservatives," which is to say "friends of business," and the issues that motivated our parents' Democratic party will be permanently off the table.

This is where I think America is headed with John Kerry and the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Democrats at the helm: a single party Republican plutocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 11:27 AM

Encounter with the Messiah

Some may be interested to read a view from outside. It is a translated article from DER SPIEGEL, a slightly left of the middle German magazine.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 11:33 AM

Been to johnkerry.com. Which is precisely what convinced me not to vote for him. It is John Kerry's and the New Democrat's vision that is too narrow, Nerd, not Nader's and Cobb's.

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in my argument though, Nerd. What I meant to say was that the middle class needs to be radicalized to the point where they themselves will put pressure on their fellow middle class voters to stop voting Republican. Not radicalized to the point where they will actually support, much less actively work to pursue a progressive agenda. The middle class won't ever support and work for a progressive working class and poor peoples' agenda. But they will change the way they vote, and try to influence the way their fellow middle class voters are voting, because that isn't perceived as being radical by their class.

That is the difference, Nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 12:15 PM

GUEST, your self-contradictory rhetoric continues to make my head spin. Your justification of the previous contradiction didn't make much sense.

Nor does this one:

1) The Democrats have failed the workers because they are going after corporate money. This has caused the working class to vote Republican.

2) The Republicans are successful because they have think tanks, lobbyists, magazines, publishing houses, etc, which convince the working class to vote their way.

Now, the Republicans paid for those things how? With corporate money.

So the Democrats fail because they are raising corporate money, and the Republicans succeed with THE SAME VOTERS because they...are raising corporate money!

But it's not the fault of the "working class" that they vote against their interests. It's also not the fault of the party that decevies and exploits them into voting its way. It's the fault of the OTHER party.

Come on!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 12:21 PM

Sorry if the paradoxes, ambiguities, and contradictions in life make your head spin, Nerd. If you can't figure it out, though, it just means you aren't willing to try. You clearly have the intelligence to understand that I was writing about paradoxes, ambiguities, and contradictions of the political liberal/conservative wars, but it doesn't suit your agenda to admit to understanding.

C'est la guerre.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 12:46 PM

Nice try, GUEST, but this is just more of your attempt to get your agenda out by obfuscation. You are the one who hijacked this thread and turned it into a pro Nader rant. When someone points out your tactics, you again attempt to just throw out a generalized comment and then back to your rant.

Most folks have you figured out, but I think you know that. Your real agenda has to do with self worth. You do this for attention. Happy to be of service.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 12:47 PM

I read the whole article you linked to Wolfgang, but frankly the "outsider" viewpoint looks identical to the US mainstream media's conventional wisdom. Which should tell us that there really isn't any difference between Western European punditry and American punditry when it comes to the mainstream media's mantra of conventional wisdom punditry.

The problem with politics today is the same as the problem with public education today. Meritocracy. Be it corporate meritocracy or union meritocracy or government meritocracy or public policy meritocracy or what have you. The system is that only those who have already proved themselves worthy according to the standards of success established by those who preceded them, are allowed to comment as "experts" and participate as power players in the political process.

That is why Barbara Ehrenreich, a well established writer, had to write "Nickle and Dimed". The reality is, none of her working poor colleagues would have been published had they written the book instead of her, because Ehrenreich is safely ensconsed in the ,iddle and upper class publishing meritocracy. And there are millions of working poor people who could have written "Nickle and Dimed" much better than Ehrenreich, because it would have been a much more genuinely harrowing read, not to mention authentic rather than contrived.

Same is true of Michael Moore's stuff. There are plenty of working poor people who could have made "Bowling for Columbine" or "Fahrenheit 9/11." Hell--there are plenty of Iraqis that could have made "Fahrenheit 9/11". But if you think Disney is stingy with Michael Moore...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 01:01 PM

Casual question:

Where does GUEST get the time to sit at the computer and type all this stuff? And why? It isn't going to change anybody's mind. Wouldn't he/she be more productive out working for the candidate he/she favors?

(And I'm an "absolutist!???" Tell me, GUEST, what exactly do youi mean?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 01:04 PM

Nope Big Mick, you are wrong again. It's my thread to begin with, so I'm not the one doing the hijacking. There is nothing wrong with discussing what is important and meaningful to me, which you try to demonize by referring to it ominously as "getting my agenda out". Of course I'm discussing what matters to me, and there is nothing devious whatsoever about that. It is what we are all doing in chat forums when we enter into these discussions. You are so fucking patronizing and condescending to readers Mick. You really ought to get a clue.

Because I've stated unequivocally I'm voting for Nader, doesn't mean that I am here surreptiousiously trying to organize for Nader. I mean, c'mon. I'm spouting my opinions on issues, Mick. Some of my opinions are shared by Nader supporters, some not. Some of my opinions are shared by Kerry supporters, Bush supporters, and Green supporters. So the hell what? We're talking politics and issues of the day.

As for those who would rather turn the discussion to the horse race, instead of discussing the ways the Democratic party has locked it's own progressive wing out of the convention by making it all about Nader and Me instead (like you have), are the ones hijacking the thread, if you want to get technical about it. I don't want to get technical about it, because I just don't care that much. I'm perfectly happy to go with the flow here and not fight my way upstream. Which really seems to get your nose out of joint for some reason.

This is the internet. We are in an obscure folk music chat forum, discussing politics. To suggest that this is all about about agendas and debate tactics is ludicrous. I'm writing my opinions. I'm challenging other peoples' opinions. That is what people do in obscure internet chat forums when discussing the politics of the day.

But hell, I am not going to be held to the thread title any more than the rest of you who are doing the so-called hijacking are holding yourselves to discussing the original subject matter of the thread title. I'm ready to rumble.

So instead of mouthing silly psychotherapy babble like "Your real agenda has to do with self worth" how about you get your grip off your dick for a change, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 01:19 PM

Casual answer.

Not that I owe you any explanations, but since I really don't care anyway: I have all this time on my hands right now because I'm gainfully unemployed right now. I write here (and in a couple other places online), because it is an easy way to get my thoughts about these things in order. Some people use their daily journaling, I use internet chat forums.

It is fine if you think I'd be more productive according to your beliefs, working for political candidates.

But since my purpose for posting here isn't to do anything but participate in the chatter and maybe get some people thinking, instead of being atypical knee jerk reactionaries like the vast majority of you are, I don't agree with your assessment of how I should best spend my time.

Your absolutism is glaringly obvious. Your posts demonstrate your absolute belief that your way of thinking on the election is the one right way to think, Don. In my book, that is a hallmark of absolutist thinkers--that absolute power should be vested in your rulers, your party. Your absolutism is the absolutism of the Democratic party, and your preferred absolutist rulers are your men of this election season, John Kerry and John Edwards, and the Democratic Leadership Council that is backing them and holding the Democratic party in it's vise grip. You toe an absolutist party line. Bush must go, Kerry must win. That is the definition of absolutism.

Maybe you need to get out your dictionary and look up the word, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 01:35 PM

GUEST, I understand what you are saying in you last post (29 Jul 04 - 01:19 PM), and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Much of what I post here is along the same line--like daily journaling.

I do not agree that the vast majority of Mudcatters are "knee jerk reactionaries," nor do I agree with you're contention that I am an "absolutist." I came to my conclusions through a long process of assessment and reasoning. That process continues, and if I encounter new facts or information, I may change my mind. I realize that this puts me in the same camp as John Kerry, who, when he changes his mind because he has received new information, he is accused of "flip-flopping."

Give me a good rational for voting for Nader, and I might just come around. But make it better that the ones offered so far.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 02:00 PM

"Bush must go, Kerry must win. That is the definition of absolutism. "

No it isn't, it is a definition of common sense.

The bottom line is that one of these two will be President. Agree or disagree, they are the "rulers" and if you choose to live in this country, you abide by the rules.   You don't have to agree with them, and you most definitely should work for changing the ones that are wrong. You've chosen what you call a "progressive" or "radical" path, and you are unfortunately have very little company on that path. You are welcome to continue to wander in the wilderness, or you can work for change in the way most of us have chosen. Your call, and I wish you luck with whatever way you choose. It appears you have made up your mind and you won't listen to other points of view. Good luck to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 02:17 PM

Don't worry Don, I'm wavering and considering switching my vote now. I'm seriously being lobbied by friends to support the Greens, and vote Cobb. It does make better sense in terms of third party strategy and furthering the progressive agenda. I'm not convinced yet, because I think Nader is actually braver, and covered by the press a whole lot better than Cobb, who is being completely marginalized and ignored. Cobb can't get on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, Nader can.

So the pragmatist in me says, keep supporting Nader, so the progressive message keeps getting some press. Not much press, of course. But Nader is definitely getting more press than Kucinich or Cobb are getting--or Jesse Jackson, for that matter--combined. Hence, my continued support for Nader.

But voting in Minnesota, a vote for Cobb could really help the Minnesota Green Party, which actually is doing pretty well here. So right now I'm feeling pretty torn. Like I said, I'm not much into the presidential horse race. I think a strong case can be made for letting Bush win this time. Not to give him an actual mandate, of course, but to give the right wing plenty of rope to hang themselves with by 2008. That way we just might be able to put an end to this Thirty Year Drought of right wing corruption, graft, and misrule.

I do care about my local races, though. Which is why I may well vote Green. The Green Party is the most viable progressive party in Minnesota right now, and the only one capable of getting matching funds. So it is very tempting to switch my vote to Cobb, to insure the progressive movement can get matching funds in the next election cycle, which will be much more important in Minnesota than the current election. We don't have any of the Twin Cities national congressional offices up for re-election this year.

There is no rationale that will get me to vote for Kerry, though. None. I view today's national Democratic party as the enemy, just like I view the national Republican party as the enemy.

Or to put it better: where was the national Democratic party when the right wing hate mongers came flying out of the rafters at the Wellstone memorial? Where was the national Democratic party for Walter Mondale, when he took Wellstone's place in 2002? Before that debacle, I could forgive the Democratic party for a lot of shit and cut them a lot more slack if it wasn't for that. But after the Wellstone thing, well. I won't be doing jack shit to support the national Democratic party anytime soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 02:41 PM

The funny thing is that I read an article in World Net Daily how the conservatives are splintering from Bush because they think it would be better if he lost the election and that would mobilize them to put a "real" conservative in the white house.   It is amazing how similar both parties really are.

On Imus I hear two viewpoints from the liberal guests.   One states that democrats must go to the middle and pretent to be republicans to get elected.    (the Bill Clinton 1992 approach)   The other viewpoint states that this "Clinton" strategy has led to defeat in the past 8 years and the party should move further to the left.   It appears to me that Kerry is in the Clinton camp trying to play to the center, while Dean, Kucinich, Moore and others believe in the latter strategy.   I also think Bush is using the same strategy as Kerry in trying to play to the center.

Wouldn't be nice if both parties just said what they actually believed in and let the voters decide.   That would be fair and balanced.

The other debate is whether you vote for the person whose ideas you mostly believe in (Nader) or the person more likely to get elected (Kerry)    Pragmitism vs morality - a very interesting choice

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 03:23 PM

But I dont' see a vote for Nader as being non-pragmatic. For progressives, voting for Nader or Cobb is pragmatic, because we know, if we can get enough of the national vote (even a measley 7% between Nader and Cobb) to spoil the election for the Democrats, they will HAVE to abandon the New Democrat strategy.

Problem with most people is they think in the short term, and only in terms of this election. I don't see that much will change, despite the philosophical and policy differences between Kerry and Bush, in the next four years under Kerry. Kerry isn't willing to go far enough to dismantle the Reagan Revolution to have any real effect on the country and the future of the Democratic party.

I don't support Nader to try and gain some nebulous moral high ground. My purpose for supporting Nader is completely practical: I want to get rid of the New Democrats more than I want to get rid of Old Republicans this year. Voting for Nader or Cobb is the only way to get rid of the New Clinton Democrats, and steal the Democratic party back from the corporate elite who are running it into the ground. It's the traditional constituencies of the Democratic party that need to be energized, not the middle class checkbook liberals.

Michael Moore knows who the people in those constituencies are, because he comes from one of them, which is why any ticket to an event with him this week is the hottest ticket in town. He only has a high school diploma, but he was voted onto the Flint school board at age 18.

Who are those traditional constituencies?

A third are in their teens or twenties. Nearly six in ten have a high school degree or less. Twenty-eight percent are African American or Hispanic. And 57 percent are women.

A whopping 72 percent of those whose record indicates they won't vote in November — despite the fact that they're registered to vote — think the country is on the wrong track. They prefer Kerry over President Bush by 54 percent to 30 percent. But, of course, this won't matter if Kerry can't convince them to come to the polls and actually vote.

They are the crucial bloc for a new prgressive coalition that I keep talking about. They have no time for the disingenuous, tired old New Leftie checkbook liberals, who have treated them like shit while exploiting them and their votes to line their leftie pockets. They are contemptuous of the New Left liberal unions who have done nothing for them. They are contemptuous of the meritocracy that keeps the high school educated, regardless of how smart, talented, ambitious, and competent they are, out of the good jobs, and out of the political process. They absolutely detest the media whores, probably more than anybody. They thumb their noses at sneering "middle class nice" values (even the college educated kids who are children of that class!) that flushed them and their families down into the sewers of the Wal Mart economy with their multi-culti boho shows, their "welfare reform" and "workers compensation reform" and "health care reform" and "better wages" lies that devastated the working class in this country.

Michael Moore has touched THEIR nerve with his chutzpah, if not the actual content of the film. Because they know that the entire veneer of "normal" in our society is a crock of shit. They know the media lies to them all the time. They know that the politicians lie to them, and try and sell them a bill a goods all the time. They know that the New Left liberals are sneering at them, looking down their noses at the unwashed masses of them with their high school diplomas and GEDs, and perpetual on the job training that lasts a couple years until the next recession hits and they get laid off from their "promised land" secure jobs.

There are at least two pragmatic models for building a coalition in a time of need. One is to promote the politics of fear and scarcity. The politics of culture wars and racial animosity. The Republican party focuses on the same group I have mentioned both in this thread and in this post above. That group includes the dispossessed working class that leans progressive and the dispossessed working class that leans conservative. The Republicans make their appeals to those who are dissatisfied with their lives in some way and, rather than seek true causes, choose to blame gays (if you are a minority), women (all races), and minorities (if you are white).

Progressive coalition building also focuses on that group of dispossessed poor and working poor, but instead of appealing to their fears and feelings of impoverished disempowerment, shows them there is a better way of life ahead if they are just willing to get on the progressive train and work for positive change for a better future, instead of reverting to and entrenching themselves in the negative, impoverishing traditions of the past.

Hell, even the DLCDNC paid lipservice to the progressive tradition in it's platitudes this week, even though we could tell their words rang hollow.

Like I said, "Hope is on the way" coming from the national Democratic DLC party sounds too much like "The check is in the mail". Non-voters know that it will take a whole lot more than empty campaign promises and pretty rich white boy convention speechifying before they will climb on board ANYBODY'S train.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 04:29 PM

OK GUEST, here is what is wrong with your whole argument. You talk about the progressive agenda as if it should be the front center piece. We tried that and ended up with Reagan and his so called revolution. Things have never been the same since. Prior to allowing people of your ilk to call the shots, the Dems were viable and a major force. They shaped the progressive agenda beginning with Roosevelt and going on through the 60's. But in the late 60's and 70's, the far left wing of the party was in control. That was OK with folks like me, but ...... and hold on to your hat, cause this is a really important concept .... it ain't about me and it ain't about you. Politics is never about the far left or the far right. It is about the great middle 60%. When politics is about the far left or far right, it ain't democracy. Like it or not, most folks don't agree with how I would like things done. The difference between you and I is that I have come to understand that it is always about the middle. You may decry that fact, you may call me a sellout, whatever you feel the need to do. But in my maturing as a politico, I have come to understand that real change rarely happens at the barricades. It is a carefully crafted plan, done in small steps. I am not unhappy that folks like you are around, because the radicals always have a piece of it right, and cause the middle to think.

Let me respond to to personal things here. First off, the people I care about don't call me patronizing. Hopefully they just think I care. When I made the comment to you, I wasn't trying to patronize, I was taking a jab at you. I know, as I am a Saint, that I shouldn't do this, but that is what the Rite of Reconcilliation is for.

As to me holding private body parts, well, all I can say is that when one falls back on this it usually means they have a prurient interest in the subject. I wish I could accomodate you on this, but unfortunately for you and fortunately for me, I am spoken for. Now .... if The FAIR ONE whom I shamelessly pursue over cyber hill and dale were to ask ...............

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 05:37 PM

"We tried that and ended up with Reagan"

So, we are to seriously accept that Carter was a fighting member of the progressive left? What a crock of shit! Hell, FDR wasn't even that progressive--it was his wife, not him!

Or maybe you are suggesting that Give Em Hell Harry was a progressive--after all, didn't do us all the favor of vetoing Taft Hartley?

Or is it LBJ that is your kind of progressive, what with his Gulf of Tonkin resolution and all?

JFK didn't even support the civil rights movement until AFTER he was elected, and the screws put on him by the civil rights movement (not to mention the burgeoning age of television that showed us the true, naked face of power in America with the hoses and attack dogs) made the protestors impossible for him to ignore.

Progressives already had a chance at running the country? Sure, Mick. Where'd YOU learn American history--the back of the Cheerios box or the Sunday comics?

You and your organized labor cronies can't do your friggin' union organizing jobs to save yer life. You've been in bed with the criminals and corporate whores for decades, just to get your nice, middle class life, and insure your own job security while everybody else got part time Wal Mart jobs.

Organized labor is a large part of the problem with the Democratic party, not the solution. And everybody knows it. Sell outs always believe it is about "the great middle" and "compromise". But that's why organized labor has lost members and can't get workers to trust them. You sold the workers down the river in order to save your fatcat asses.

Running for your beloved, coveted middle for cover has resulted in a precipitous decline union membership, with current levels of membership at a 60 year low. And sinking. You and your buddies are some union organizers there, Mick. Teamsters and the Air Traffic Controllers were the first to jump on the Reagan Democrat bandwagon, and look where running to the middle with Clinton's New Democrats got them, despite throwing the old bastards like Kirkland out. Despite Decatur. Despite the UPS strike. On Sweeney's watch, union membership fell from 14.9 percent to 13.5 bu 2001.

You can't convince young people to join unions, any more than you can convince them to vote Democratic. Or vote at all. Perhaps they didn't think you boys negotiating them better severance packages or busting them down to part time was exactly in their best interest.
And UAW is one of the princes of the labor losers--right up there with UMW.

The only growth industry for unions is the security industry, suprise surprise. Cops. Prison guards. Immigration officers. Surveillance workers. No wonder guys like you don't care about the Patriot Act--it's all good for the union organizing business, just like drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, or clear cutting the last remaining old growth forests.

The more the unions turned it's back on it's working class base, the more it has turned to the most socially backward right-to-work hired hand elements to sustain its membership. The socially regressive cops and prison guards, whose organizations once busted our parents' generations' heads, are now one of organized labors biggest constituencies.

That is the bone the Democrats keep throwing to organized labor these days: elect us and we'll hire more cops and prison guards to keep the rabble rousing riff raff like me in line, right Mick? No outcry about police brutality, racial profiling, or immigrant bashing from organized labor's ranks.

Going all the way back to the Chrysler corporate welfare bail-out that was so stridently supported by organized labor, you've sold out the American worker bit by NAFTA/GATT ankle biting bit. In the name of making US firms more competitive internationally (yeah, right--it was globalization or bust), the unions collaborated with big business to reduce the share of the national wealth going to the working class. You demonized locals like P9 for wildcatting. Demonized young people taking to the streets in Seattle and out and out abandoned future generations to living in inner city squalor.

But jerks like you never looked back, Mick. Because you got yours, didn't you?

Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,RichKimmel
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 05:39 PM

Guest I think you are dead on. I am afraid that worry for my young children (I know about the value of considering the grandchildren as well but when you look into a four years old's face you panic for the here and now)and also general change while getting older has led me away from action toward your type of thinking to something more like Big Micks'. The complete confusion this causes has almost rendered me helpless. I am not being dramatic. A mere glimpse of GWB's smug face and I am ice-cold with fear. He actually confused feces with fetus. What if you are you "misunderestimating" the damage he can do to this entire earth with four more years?

Just wanted to come in on your side but still deeply troubled. I think this obscure folk chat forum is an incredibly valuable place for political discussion, been reading it for years.   Thanks to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM

I don't know what to tell you Rich. All I know is, I was staring into my 4 year old's face during the Reagan years, and I couldn't conceive of compromising with the bastards, or buying organized labor's mantras of the importance of moving to the middle, where they are stuck--paralyzed actually--today.

William Greider is a really good writer, very safe middle of MY road kind of guy, who writes for the middle of the road, The Nation magazine. If you can't bring yourself to vote against both Kerry and Bush, then I'm guessing this article by him is a pretty good reading of the tea leaves as to where you and Big Mick will likely end up:

Slow-Gear Democrats

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 06:20 PM

And Rich, I don't mean to be flippant. I honest to god don't know what to tell people like you.

I have never owned new kitchen or laundry appliances. Never owned a home. Never owned a car newer than 10 years old. I am not college educated (despite Big Mick's insistence that I am an ivory tower university intellectual). I never aspired to live a middle class life style. I love working as an artist activist in a progressive community of people. The work I've always had has been low wage, and I and my family lived without health insurance for decades, until I was finally hired to a full time, benefits eligible position in 2001. I was laid off from that job in 2002, but rehired in fall 2003. So the unemployment see saw has been pretty damn scary too. But that is the daily reality I, and other working class families face. It makes you pretty scrappy and resourceful, though! Which I suppose is one of the reasons why staring into my babies' faces never unnerved me enough to bargain with the Republicrat devils.

But I've never regretted the decisions I've made, despite it being a pretty tough life in the financial sense, and certainly in terms of status vis a vis the middle class people I'm surrounded by, especially at work. I work in K12 education as a paraprofessional, and my partner, who also doesn't have a college degree, works at a Big Ten university without benefits.

Maybe I'm deeply satisfied with and proud of the life I've lived because I'm an artist, and artists worth their salt (as opposed to dancing monkeys, that is) live at society's margins, not at it's center. Maybe it's because life at the margins of our wealthy American society is a damn sight better than life at the margins of society most anywhere else in the world, so we got by pretty easy for the most part. I dont' know.

I just know that now that the kids are getting older, with no retirement benefits beyond some paltry Social Security I'll likely never see, and a pittance remaining in my public school pension that will likely disappear before I retire too, I'm not caving in to the temptations of being adored and accepted by the middle class liberals or conservatives. I'd rather die naked and alone on the street on a January night in Ely and be dragged off by hungry timberwolves, than throw my lot in with the Republicrats.

As you might have guessed by now, I have some pretty strong feelings about all this. ;-)

You've always got a choice. Depends upon whether you let fear mongering Clinton Democrats and fear mongering Bush Republicans dictate the terms of your life, or you choose a more beautiful, uplifting, hopeful kind of future and work your ass off to reach for it, I guess. That is the life I chose to live, and like I said, I've never regretted it for an instance.

Good luck wrestling those demons.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 07:20 PM

Latest of GUEST's contradictions:

1) You've always got a choice. Depends upon whether you let fear mongering Clinton Democrats and fear mongering Bush Republicans dictate the terms of your life, or you choose a more beautiful, uplifting, hopeful kind of future.

2) I'd rather die naked and alone on the street on a January night in Ely and be dragged off by hungry timberwolves, than throw my lot in with the Republicrats.

If even number 2 above is preferable to you than working with major parties, how can you claim you are "choosing a more beautiful, uplifting, hopeful kind of future?" You're just choosing not to work with political parties, no matter WHAT future that leaves you. Only a completely irrational rejection, based on fear and hatred, would make you prefer the kind of death you describe.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 08:06 PM

"But jerks like you never looked back, Mick. Because you got yours, didn't you?"

Hey Guest, we hate to surprise you but "getting yours" is what it IS all about.   The issue is that many people have been shut out from "getting theirs". If you think the answer is working from the far outside fringe, go for it. The rest of us understand that "compromise" is not the same as "selling out" and people need to "work" to find solutions.

Unfortunately you are living in a dream world that is an extension of some romantic fantasy you have about being "progressive". You have to walk the walk instead of just providing lip service, and it doesn't appear that you have done that based on your ramblings. You are no different from Rush Limbaugh.

"I'm not caving in to the temptations of being adored and accepted by the middle class liberals or conservatives.'
I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM

"If even number 2 above is preferable to you than working with major parties, how can you claim you are "choosing a more beautiful, uplifting, hopeful kind of future?"

I avoid a lot of assholes, am for the most part, around a lot of really fantastic people, and live a pretty simple, but rich life. What's not beautiful about that, Nerd?

OTOH, the people I know who are political party activists, and I actually have known quite a few of them down through the years, haven't been very well adjusted people. They were, to engage in a few gross generalizations based purely upon my own personal experiences, insecure no matter how much they had, alienated a lot of people, not the least of whom were usually their partners, kids, and friends, and seemed to be edgily functioning in their lives as if they were struggling with an addiction--which work is for a lot of people--rather than involved in meaningful work they truly enjoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,richkimmel
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 08:10 PM

People like me?

I read Znet and magazine too so save your condscending references for someone who deserves them. I was just being honest. I hadn't doubted your sincerity in this longish title until your last little diatribe I seemed to have inspired by my confession.

I don't have a car or license, no house, no insurance of any sort, high school and self-educated, minority, - I don't consider these to be badges of honor, just my reality. You seem to be assuming higher ground for your CHOICES as an artist. That word CHOICE would seem to be key here but maybe I'm not looking at it in enough of a fringey, artistic sense, eh? I do not to aspire to the middle class lifestyle nor do I balk at the idea of better food for my kids each week. I live in a low-income community. I do my part in this community and respect each person among whom I live. I also actively participate in Refuse and Resist, protest regularly, write profusely (if not well), etc, etc...

I do live passively with regard to politics or give in to anyone. I work and think and strategize and read and gather and participate.

"Which I suppose is one of the reasons why staring into my babies' faces never unnerved me enough to bargain with the Republicrat devils."

Well, I look at mine and I worry about the pain and suffering my actions may cause them and want to protect them as best I can. I want that smug, dangerous, embarrasing moron out of there by any means necessary. So my children might one day be able to choose to be artists living on the fringe of society like you dearie.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,richKimmel
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:10 PM

that would be I do NOT live passively with regard to politics. typo. sorry. keep rereading awaiting your reply and dreaming I suddenly become an amazing writer. Anyway, because I want a specific change right now and am leaning more toward change through *certain* compromises does not render me a sheeple. nope. I still tow the line.

And rich stands for Rachel. just btw. And what's up, lost your momentum guest precious? maybe I'll give up on this thread too. got to go galvanize some youngsters to vote. for anyone just vote. Ooh is that too middle of the road for ya?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:11 PM

Geez, Rich, you figured this idiot out pretty quickly. She loves to make assertions about me that are not based in fact. But that is OK because each time she does it, she just looks more desperate. The fact is that I have never left my roots, I agitate for progressive causes, I take on my supposed liberal brethren/sistren, and I challenge the system at all opportunities. That is probably why I have never "gotten mine". But one lesson I have learned in the trenches, a place where this jerk has never been. No matter how hard one tries, no matter the rightness of the argument, you cannot win, or even impact in a positive way, from the outside. Change happens in small increments. And to fly into the flame to prove your point only makes you a fried moth.

This person is just an angry person with no real time in the trenches. Many of her points are legitimate, but her smug "I am smarter than you dumb bastards, and you ought to be able to see that" approach tells me that she does the easy work. That is she is just a critic. Nothing to that. But fighting where it happens, and seeing the faces of those impacted by your stance will have a profound effect on you. You realize that some folks live and die by what you do. That is why I don't like you, and I don't like your attitude. You would condemn American soldiers to death to radicalize the middle. You would condemn American workers to poverty to make a point. And in the end, nothing would change in a positive way.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,rich kimmel
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:28 PM

Yep Big Mick. I would have liked to maybe have talked about the censorship part of the thread in a Chomsky kinda way etc but then this sneaking confessional thing took me over and I decided to make that point first and the then other guests' misguided venom just put me off the whole ting...so can I just be a real bad egg and say...

that colorful fair one thingy you did just gave me such a chill and yearning for someone to woo me through cyber hill and dale...ah, but my fair one uses the hunt and peck typing method and would just end up hanging his head and crying trying...nevermind pretty colors : )

and on that note I shall return to my four years and counting silent but loyal mudcat status.

rich

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:38 PM

Back to the DNC, I gotta say it may be good showmanship, PR or genuine character, but listening to Vanessa and her sister talking about their dad makes the Bush twins look like a pair of complete space cadets!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:39 PM

Rachel, you only have to hunt and peck it once. Then copy it to the clipboard, and paste it to a word processing program. Then whenever you need it, just pull it up and copy and paste.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,rayofsunshine kimmel
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 09:55 PM

no where near a four year silence I guess...

cut and paste...the colorful thingy you mean? Ah yeah but we're married with two kids so he ain't hunting and pecking any colorful thingies for me unless I'm near a breakdown or something. He will say off-color things over a couple of pints while wearing a colorful shirt though : ) that's always nice.