BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:32 PM

I looked up 600 on the internet, and discovered it was the "radio home" of Rush Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM

Not '666'?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM

Wow... Coincidence? I don't think so. Bobert, how do you plead?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:57 PM

Here's a dailykos diary for those who really are curious about Obama's positions on issues in comparison with Edwards.*

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/14339/3667/281/440090

Substance Matters. Hope Helps. Obama Has Both.
by RenaRF
Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM PST

Among the positions examined in chart format with comments are:

Repeal tax cuts for wealthy

Patriot Act

Abortion

US out of Iraq

Same-sex
domestic partnership
benefits

Teacher led prayer in school

Mandatory
3 strikes
sentencing laws

Death penalty

etc. etc. etc.


*Why Edwards? Perhaps because up till last week, more kossacks [members of the dailykos blog] favored Edwards than any other candidate. Judging from the last straw poll of members, Obama appears to be slightly leading Edwards among kossacks now and Clinton remains a distant third.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:54 AM

Keep up by reading Andrew Sullivan..

here is something..

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/sleaze-in-nevad.html#more

In this..or maybe another blog that day..caucus goers were told that there were not enough ballots..how is that?? doors were closed early..and Obama supporters were told they were on the "dark side of the party." Oh goodness..is that a racial slur perhaps?

I can not for the life of me understand how people can stomach the Clintons. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:56 AM

And I should say that people make these comments innocently all the time..oh the sky is getting black/dark whatever and there is no racial meaning at all although sometimes they are accused of it...but in a highly charged political situation, where they ahve been accused credibly of doing exactly this, again I doubt it is a slip of the tongue. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 02:42 AM

Dennis Kucinich speaks up for honest voting practices when it's Obama (really, Obama's supporters) who is/are being cheated. Obama needs to consider how his silence when Kucinich (Kucinich's supporters) is/are being cheated undermines his own position. If Obama isn't willing to stand up for the process when others are being wronged he can't expect the process to work properly for him either. It either works or it don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 03:08 AM

I think he is coming out swinging. He probably should have Edwards as a running mate just to try to keep up with all the dirty tricks and that is just from the Democrats so far...or better yet, say that Edwards will be his attorney general and first order of business will be to oversee elections. I do think that we need election observers from other countries here like we go to other places..a bunch of Iraquis, Nicaraguans, Kenyans, etc...from all over..

Don't they have oversite in these caucuses? Police even? Video cameras? I admit to my ignorance but how could doors be closed? How could they run out of ballots? It's paper for heaven's sakes. I think people should have to leave a fingerprint somewhere..not on the actual vote, but when they are let in to vote.

And regardless of who did what, I don't want to hear about unions forcing people to vote a certain way..they can encourage it, they can say the union leadership thinks this is the best candidate on all the issues we face..but there had better be no interference...

And I guess it was legal but they said people from other states were pouring into New Hampshire to vote because of a legality that said they could. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:00 AM

Some blogger says that some caucus worker said that some Obama supporter was told by someone (presumably a Clinton supporter) that he or she was on the "dark side of the party". Certainly sounds like a creditable reflection of Ms. Clinton's position to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 09:37 AM

First of all, I agree with CarolC... In my perfect world Obama would insist that Kucinich be not only included in debates but, ahhhhhh, asked the same number of questions... It is disappointing that isn't happening...

Alos disappointing are the Clinton "dirty tricks" with Bill shooting off his mouth, grabbing lots of attention and then Hillary following by expalining what Bill meant to say??? Bull... These two are like twiddle dee and twiddle dum... All this is being choreographed by the Clinton/s campaign... She knows fully what he's going to do and say... It's Karl Rove politics and its beginning to stink up the joint...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM

The Miami Herald is running a story describing Obama as running around the Bible-Belt trying to convince voters that he is not Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:06 AM

The Miami Herald is also quite capable of running a story describing Obama as a "father raper; repeat the story enough and it will earn traction with some voters.

Edwards in my opinion would make a better Attorney General for Obama than a Vice-Presidential running mate. Edwards just doesn't have the international resume or executive experience that, say, Richardson would bring to the ticket.

I also think it naive at this point to assume the Republicans have not scoped out an attack campaign against an Obama Presidential run. I do agree that they would prefer to run against Hillary Clinton but Obama under closer scruntiny may have his own vulnerbilities.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:37 AM

One of the main factors in Obama's favor is the number of independents and moderate to liberal Republicans he will get. Of those, Hillary will get virtually none.

In fact picking her is the best possible way to unite the Republicans--against her.

Independents (and moderate to liberal Republicans) are exactly the type of people who will do their own research, and will not be swayed by stupid Swift-Boat style attacks, Limbaugh etc., meat-cleaver- subtle contributions, or Cheney-style panic propaganda.

And they are also exactly the type of people who most want an end to the vicious unproductive partisanship which has dominated US political life for a long time. Which Hillary embodies. And Obama breaks with.

There's absolutely no question who would be the stronger candidate in the general election.

For a host of reasons, it ain't Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

That's pretty close to admitting that Obama is closer to the Republicans, though....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 03:07 PM

Ron-

"Independents (and moderate to liberal Republicans) are exactly the type of people who will do their own research, and will not be swayed by stupid Swift-Boat style attacks, Limbaugh etc., meat-cleaver- subtle contributions, or Cheney-style panic propaganda."

I sure wish I had your confidence in such an assumption.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

Dang!

Here I am agreeing with both Bobert and Ron Davies in regards to Obama vs Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM

It comes down to whether you think independents and moderate to liberal Republicans--especially strongly antiwar people--who thus can vote for none of the Republican front-runners-- are intelligent or not.

If they are, they will do their own research, as I said.

And while Hillary is diligently alienating people all over the spectrum, Obama is doing the opposite.

For example, I will never vote for Hillary unless she admits she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. And since she never makes mistakes--and many of us are tired of that, having had 7 years of it---she will not admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:34 PM

And no, Richard, you are incorrect--I'm not surprised that you're a prisoner of adversarial politics, having read your postings for quite a while. It just means Obama wants to get something done--and knows he needs bipartisan co-operation to do it.   Perhaps you don't think that's important. Some Americans differ with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

And some might differ from me.

The problem I foresee is that if you have to make concessions to your enemies, in order to obtain power, what is it that you are going to get done?

The war will work itself out. What America needs, what millions of Americans (is it 57 million?) need right now is a national health service, a proper welfare state, rights for working people, and a government with the courage to apply the New Deal expenditure philosphy to your threatened recession (which in turn like the Republican candidates warmongering threatens the rest of the world, but unlike that will leave your economy owned by the Indians and Chinese and such profits as there might be exported).

It also needs the rule of law reinstated and an honest political process.

Over here we made the mistake of believing that Blair and Brown had paid lip-service to the post-Thatcherite middle ground simply to get elected, and that they would reveal true socialist colours in due course. How our hopes have been dashed.

If you elect someone who has bought in to (indeed is almost indentured to) large parts of the Republican middle ground, that's what you will have until at least the next election: the Republican middle ground. You will not get "change" for nothing concrete has been promised.

Learn from our mistakes. But on the other hand, Clinton is not all that different, albeit for her the enemy is everyone who is not her, as distinct from all those from other countries.

I realise that you find the expression "magic wand" laden with odd overtones, but Obama will not bring you one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:23 PM

"...concessions to your enemies"

"prisoner of adversarial politics"

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:32 PM

What we need over here, Richard, above everything else is "democracy"... We don't have it... The Founding Fathres gave US a framework and meathods to keep it modern but we have failed to do juts that so instead of our system of governemnt being one that limits the powers of the majority to vamp on the minority we have slowly developed into a nation where the minority has a death grip on power...

Consider this: 18% of the population contols 51% of the Senate??? And these 18% have, in essence, allowed the US to slip and slide further down toward ruin because this 18% thinks it deserves to call the shots and call the shots they do... And juts to make matters worse, the 18% are generallty less educated and informed about the real world...

That is the US's single largest problem and until and unless it gets solved, the US will continue on it's downward slide... But fixin' it will involves the 18% to go along with the changes and they aren't about to do that...

"The South will rise again" and it has....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:45 PM

As long as the Democratic and Republican party machines control your elections, Bobert, you won't have a real democracy, because they sold out long ago to the same backing interests.

They are the two false faces of OZ that you see in public, but you don't get to see the men behind the curtain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM

Well, LH, that's only part of the problem... Fix democracy first that provided a framework where parties can represent a diffent menu of options... The broken governemntal structure is what keeps the parties having to play the same game...

Consider this: If it takes 60 votes to cut off a fillibuster and bring about an actual up-and-down vote then 11% of the population controls the other 89%...

And the Dems know this and the Repubs know this so they tailor their message to as little as 11% of the population!!! Not much room for error there and that is exactly why the Dems and Repubs are so similar...

Fix the broken democracy and the parties will follow...

Now to do that is anyone's guess 'cause we wold have to have a party step away from the minority and propose a fix that a minority that allready holds the power would surely reject... In other words...

...we are basicly screwed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 07:02 PM

Actually, Richard is completely right. After all, consider all the wonderful progress made by the Left in the UK during the period 1979-1997, when his prescription of constant confrontation was followed by Labour.

Truly a magnificent model for the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 09:06 PM

Ron, you seem to overlook that the Republicans ARE the enemies and oppressors of most Americans.

And while the Labour party might have been less conservative during the period cited than it is now, the suggestion that it was the Labour party that was confrontational during that period could only be made by someone who was not here.

As I said, learn from our mistakes (and indeed your own). The "trickle down" economics of Thatcher and Reagan have given the UK infant mortality and maternal mortality rates double those of Sweden (1 in 230, cf 1 in 350 and 1 in 800 cf 1 in 1800).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:29 PM

Take a look at Dennis Kucinich's platform, Richard. He is offering the kind of policy proposals that the mainstream Democratic candidates never will...and that's why he doesn't get on the nationally televised debates.

Corporate America does not want his message to be heard at all, and they own the TV networks, so he doesn't get heard there.

Those who get heard are those who will continue doing "business as usual".

I watched the CNN debate tonight between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards...(Kucinich not there as usual, not even spoken of, as if he wasn't even in the campaign).

I have to say that Edwards came across the best of the three of them by a discernable margin. Hillary's and Obama's sniping back and forth at each other is doing neither of them any good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:30 PM

Whatever you say, Richard.

Tell us about all the progress made by the Left in the UK in the period 1979-1997--the period of confrontation and refusal to compromise. How many years in that period did the Left have control of the agenda?

Then when Mr. Blair came on the scene and compromise was no longer anathema, things changed.

Or do you deny that he was willing to compromise? And by the way, this interpretation is not mine, it comes from the Economist. Perhaps you've heard of this publication?

They consider Blair is a tragic figure--squandered all his promise on Bush's criminal war.

It seems reasonable that since you are not exactly shy in telling us exactly what is going on in US politics, I can venture a few words on UK politics.

I certainly hope it meets with your approval. I can't tell you how crushed I'll be if it doesn't. But somehow I'll survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:33 PM

And Richard, I certainly hope you get more sleep--don't feel the burning need to post on Mudcat at 2 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 03:09 AM

Yes I'd like more sleep too.

The idea that there was a refusal by the Labout party to compromise during your chosen period is simply wrong. I was there.

The Economist is of course irretrievably wedded to the the capitalist agenda and is inexorably partisan in political terms. It would love Tony Blair because he took the heart out of Labour and turned it into a paler set of conservativees. Indeed, on some issues the Labour Party is to the right of the conservative party (if the conservaties could be trusted to tell the truth rather than say anything at all in order to seek election).

Blair in fact refused to compromise with teh wish of the most of the british electorate to keep the national health service free and out of the hands of the profiteers. Likewise he refused to compromise with the wish of most of the british electorate not to enter two illegal wars. He refused to compromise on plans to introduce compulsory identification cards - "Haben sie ihren Pass?" Brown continues his march to the drum of capital, to the detriment of all others.

Ask yourself. How many are capitalists, and how many workers?

Ask yourself again as the US economy poises for its next great recession, does capitalism eventially collapse under its internal contradictions?



LH - yes, I have read all of Kucinich's website and he seems to me a man of principle and vision, a vision that could immeasurably improve the lot of the vast majority of Americans : if he was given freedom of speech. It goes, I fear, to prove that in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is not king, but regarded as a hallucinator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:04 PM

Richard Bridge, you seem to overlook that the Democrats ARE the enemies and oppressors of most Americans.

Or so just under half the population thinks.

About * same * number as would agree with YOUR opinion ( even if you did state it as fact).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:01 PM

Or so just under half the population thinks. How can you tell that? Only about half the adult population actually voted for either side.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

"Only about half the adult population actually voted for either side."

So, either those people do support the ones they voted for, OR they dislike the other side even more.

Mox nix.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

BB, the Democrats AND the Republicans are the oppressors of most Americans! They both eat at the same trough. They both work for the same corporate sponsors. They both are in the business of funding and expanding militarism and making war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:59 PM

LH,

I notice that you comment on MY post, but not the one that attacks Republicans. Be fair now- DID I SAY that either was NOT?

I merely point out that as many people believe that the Dems are as bad as what the Republicans are accused of.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

As do I.

Fair enough, BB. My only problem with your post was that it left the Republicans out. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM

And my only problem with your post was that you ignored the one I was commenting on, but took exception to mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

I don't think I even saw the one you are referring too. I've been jumping around some between a variety of threads, and I simply happened to see what you posted last on this one. It wasn't that I ignored that other post, it was that I didn't happen to see it....or perhaps I didn't remember seeing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

This discussion really helps people to clarify their opinion of the various candidates?

Good thing we have lots of time to make up our minds.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:03 PM

Barack Obama Speaks at Dr. King's Church {January 20, 2008}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

"On the day before the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, Senator Barack Obama delivers a speech to the congregation of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:36 PM

Richard--

Unfortunately you don't seem to read very carefully. I never said the Economist loved Blair. What I clearly said is that they felt he blew the chance he had to make a difference in the UK--and the world-- by signing on to Bush's war, and thereby squandering the vast majority of his political capital--for an ill-advised and even worse- conducted war. The adjective "criminal" was mine, not theirs.


"The suggestion it was the Labour party that was confrontational could only be made by somebody who was not here".

Fine.

Whereas you, who as far as I know are not a US citizen and do not reside in the US--(correct me if I'm wrong--I'm sure you will)---are eminently qualified to tell us all about the current US political situation. ( I can't tell you how grateful we are for your objective reporting and incisive observations. I don't know how we'd figure out how our political system works, and how we should evaluate the candidates if you didn't share your unparalleled wisdom.)

So it's not a 2-way street. I wonder why.

I'll be glad to refrain from commenting on the UK political scene if you will do the same regarding the 2008 US presidential campaign. Why do I think the chances you will do so are not good ( to say the least?)

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us about the accomplishments of the Labour party in the period 1979-1997--that is, before compromise became an option, under Blair.

Perhaps you and your fellow ivory-tower dwellers would do well to reflect on a guiding principle for some over here: "Politics is the art of the possible".

Obama has realized this. It doesn't seem likely that you ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:02 AM

Ron, you are as usual registering about 10+ on the snide and vicious sarcastic verbal attack metre...as tends to happen whenever you disagree with anyone about poltics.

Even when I agree with you on politics (which I most often do, in fact) I find it embarrassing the way you carp and sneer at your opponents and the way you carry on these personal vendettas against people you don't agree with...gee whiz!!! You could give lessons in poison pen techniques to even Lady MacBeth, I bet.

Pray that you never end up having to share a house, a job, a marriage or anything else like that with someone else who adopts your particularly venomous method of disagreeing about things... (grin) ...or you will find out just how nasty it is. It's a lot less fun to receive that sort of thing than it is to dish out, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:08 AM

LH--

So sorry you don't approve. The fact remains--some people find it fine to comment on US politics but don't feel it reasonable when somebody else returns the compliment. And you obviously have not read Richard's recent contributions, particularly the thread he started, with the handy thumbnail evaluations of candidates.

Also, something tells me he can defend himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Kweku
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:10 AM

I could probably term my contribution to this thread as a sub-thread.
For those of us in Africa and Ghana to be specific, who follow the US politics via CNN, Al-jazera and BBC, the US election is of secondary importance because most Africans are struggling to understand the difference between Democracy and Autocracy. Talk about the Nigerian elections and just the recent one in Kenya.

So you switch on the TV and you see this lanky guy called Sen. Obama and who is referred to as a black/brown person in the US but considered white by the ordinary African on the street like our former president Jerry John Rawlings, and then you hear that he may end up being the first black of the US and you can't help but smile to yourselve. Because to us it is no news not when there are always invisible hands pulling the strings behind the scenes.

To most of us in Africa, it is just a US matter and after all if Democracy, with all due respect, is just about putting puppets on the presidential seat then who cares who wins an election. After "all" politicians and again with all due respect, are just opportunistic dinosaurs.

After all in South Africa now, all the ANC gurus are now multi-millionaires whiles the masses who died for the end of apartheid still wallow in abject poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:22 AM

Well said, Quarcoo. It is in fact just a big game, and it is not played with the public's interests in mind. It is played with the interests of giant corporations and giant banks in mind. I'm not a bit surprised that the ANC Gurus, as you call them, have betrayed the masses whom they claimed to represent.

It is autocracy indeed that rules both where you live, and in America.

Ron - Hey, man...it's just my ongoing effort to gentle you down some... ;-) I fear that your acid tongue may one day rebound on you, because I tend to believe in karma.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:34 AM

Regarding the imminent South Carolina Dem primary:

WSJ's Christopher Cooper reports from South Carolina on how Barack Obama has adjusted his strategy there, by putting a face on his campaign.
"...Candidates here rely on endorsements from powerful politicians and preachers. It is a tradition that has evolved since the 1960s to garner support among poor blacks who look to their preachers for both spiritual and political guidance. And it is the way Mrs. Clinton, like countless Democratic politicians before her, is running her campaign in South Carolina.



Mr. Obama, in contrast, is trying something many observers say has never been done here: He is circumventing entrenched local leadership and building a political machine from scratch. His staff consists largely of community organizers -- many from out of state or with no political experience -- who are assembling an army of volunteers. It is a strategy often used by labor organizations and in neighborhood and town politics.

Some evidence suggests the strategy may be working. After lagging far behind Mrs. Clinton in state polls for much of last year, Mr. Obama has jumped ahead. According to an automated poll conducted Monday by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Obama leads Mrs. Clinton 44% to 28%, with about 12% of respondents undecided. As late as October, Mrs. Clinton had a 20-percentage-point lead in many surveys. Nationally, Mrs. Clinton remains in the lead.

"If he pulls this off -- and I think he will -- Barack Obama's organization will be studied and replicated in this state for many years to come," says Inez Tenenbaum, a former South Carolina superintendent of education who has run four statewide races in the past decade. She is one of the few prominent state Democrats backing Mr. Obama.

The strategy has risks. The endorsement system of politics evolved precisely because it was locals, not outsiders, who knew where voters here lived and how to get them to the polls.

Clinton campaign officials greet the Obama strategy with skepticism. Kelly Adams, state director for the Clinton campaign and a South Carolina native, says her staff does its share of grass-roots organizing, staging fish fries, rallies and what she calls "salon outreach" in the state's barbershops. But she says these activities aren't enough to win an election...".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

Well, Ron, two main differences would be (1) I'm still enquiring and learning about US politics, and in particular about the specific views of the candidates in this election and (2) the Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich whereas the Democrats in comparison would tend to take from the rich to give to the poor.

You want a major Labour government achievment (later dismantled)? Graduated State Pension. Barbara Castle's great scheme.

Or how about student grants?

Or (an earlier Labour Government that was definitely not going to compromise, at least on the main points) - the National Health Service.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM

Good post, Quarcoo.

If the Black Box Voting people are correct about how votes are collected and counted in South Carolina, it won't really matter how effective Obama's methods are or how well he does in polls. The system in SC appears to be particularly vulnerable to manipulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:28 PM

Richard, you wrote: "the Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich whereas the Democrats in comparison would tend to take from the rich to give to the poor."

Not so! But they try to give that impression, of course, harkening way, way back to Roosevelt's New Deal (which really DID make genuine efforts to assist the poor...due to a major economic emergency that was crippling the nation).

BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans are parties of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Period. The Republicans are slightly worse when in office, I think, but they both work for the rich.

The Democrats pretend to be the friends of Black people, poor people, urban populations, and the "little guy". They pretend to be progressives defending social rights and freedoms. They lie!

The Republicans pretend to be the friends of patriots, military defenders of "freedom", conservative White rural Americans, and Evangelicals, and "the little guy". They pretend to be defenders of liberty and freedom. They lie!

They both work for the largest, most powerful financial interests in America and the rich elite that controls those interests. They both fight unjustified foreign wars and boost military spending. They both allow civil infrastructure to decay so they can build more cruise missiles and smart bombs. They both want power...at any price...and they will both do anything fraudulent to get it. They work for the same masters.

It's a closed shop.

When someone like Dennis Kucinich comes along, they simply shut him out of the national media. People don't vote for someone they barely ever even hear about.

It's a closed circle.

No one moves into the top echelons of that closed circle unless he is willing to do what they want him to do. And if so, he's lost all credibility by the time he gets there.

The only way that can be penetrated is by someone genuinely progressive who hides his true agenda...like a Trojan Horse...and then implements it after he is elected, taking the $ySStem by surprise. If someone did that, I believe they would have him assassinated.

So what can be done? A revolution? A slow unravelling of a fatally corrupt system? A gradual awakening of the public to what is really happening? A financial collapse? A catastrophic defeat in war?

I don't know, but something has to bring this oligarchy crashing down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM

Little Hawk:

Please calm down.

All politicians lie up to a point.

But I think in general the Democratic ones tend to be more progressive toward the ideals of equity, justice, and improving life both high and low than the Republicans do, especially since the 'Pubs have swung over toward the Fascist end of the spectrum since 2000.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:55 PM

Little Hawk and Ron Davies-

Would you please cease your continuous bickering, or create your own thread to thrash it out.

Charley Noble