|
28 Jul 04 - 12:12 PM (#1235584) Subject: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Michael Moore wasn't invited, nor was he going to be "allowed" onto the convention floor by the DNC. So how did he get in? With the Carter family, who apparently isn't too pleased with the DNC's censorship efforts, so brought him into their skybox. Moore sat two seats down from Rosalind. Who else is the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry campaign censoring? Well, Democracy Now reports this tid bit today (from their 'Breaking With Convention' DNC coverage): "As Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke last night, on the floor of the convention, Medea Benjamin from Global Exchange and CodePink unfurled a pink colored banner that read "End the Occupation of Iraq." That apparently was not one of the DNC-approved messages of the night because within moments of the banner being unfurled, police were called in to remove Medea Benjamin. Benjamin was dragged off the convention floor and thrown out of the FleetCenter. She said that the DNC was asked whether they wanted her arrested and that they decided that would not look good." And then, there are the 'security measures' designed to exile all political dissenters from participation in the so-called process into the so-called Free Speech Zone, in what has become known euphemistically as the 'protest pen'. But beyond the so-called Free Speech Zone, there are also thousands of political dissenters fanned out across Boston, who are caught up in the security dragnets everywhere they go. But that, of course, is a story that ALL mainstream media is censoring. Boston Indymedia reports: "The delegates have been persuaded that it (the Free Speech Zone and police harrassment of dissenters) is necessary. They may be sympathetic, but are they really listening to what people in the zone are saying? The Free Speech Zone is Bad. The cop inside peoples' heads is worse. I've been astounded at the lack of turnout at these demonstrations. Yes the FBI came to some peoples' homes. Yes there's been people stopped. These things have happened before, and people have come out before. I have to look at this as a part of the whole "anyone but Bush" insanity. Democrats are more angry at Nader, than they were at the Republicans who disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Black voters. People forget that Clinton's sanctions killed more people in Iraq than Bush's war, and that his administration gave us GATT, NAFTA, WTO and the Crime Bill and Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Acts." And AlterNet has this to say about the so-called Free Speech Zone: "The so-called free-speech zone set up by police occupies a narrow stretch of pavement underneath elevated train tracks, which are in some places so low that police have painted girders with orange "Caution - Watch Your Head." The area is further covered overhead by netting, in some places supplemented by coils of barbed wire and surrounded by a 12-foot high chain link fence draped with an translucent black mesh. The overall effect is more reminiscent of the camps set up for interment of Japanese prisoners in World War II, or the prison for enemy combatants at Camp X-Ray. What's worse, say protesters, police did not reveal the full extent of their plans for the area until a week before the convention, leaving little time for a legal challenge." Finally, there is the hidden Molotov cocktail of the convention: the Iraq war, which NO ONE is talking about from the podium. No one. The true cost Democrats are being forced to pay to support the "Anybody But Bush" campaign strategy: supporting Kerry's position on the Iraq war and occupation. Yesterday's Boston Globe noted that 80% of the delegates in this convention were opposed to the war when it was declared. Yet The Nation's David Corn reports: "The candidates had disagreed over the vote to grant Bush the authority to launch the war in Iraq. But that difference did not seem to capture the imagination of most Democratic voters. Now there appears little taste within the party for a debate over what should be done in Iraq. Some progressive Dems back the notion of expressing a date-certain for a pullout of troops, but Kerry does not. Still, this has not become a pitched fight. Perhaps that's because it's an academic question. Should Kerry win in November, he would not take office until January 20th. Who knows now what will be the appropriate policy then? In terms of big-picture principles, Kerry is for trying to internationalize the mess in order to withdraw U.S. troops. And even Dennis Kucinich and Win Without War, the antiwar coalition, don't advocate yanking US troops without replacing them with forces from elsewhere. But the best "plan" Kerry might be able to offer at this point for dealing with the enormous problem Bush created is the argument that he will muddle through better than the guy who screwed things up in the first place. In any event, the Democrats are shining, happy people." |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:16 PM (#1235588) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: CarolC Kucinich for President! |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:26 PM (#1235593) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick Kucinich endorses Kerry. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:27 PM (#1235594) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: CarolC Well nobody's perfect. ;-) |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:37 PM (#1235603) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST He has already thrown his support to Kerry. The only message allowed this year is unity behind the Democratic Party dictators. The Rainbow Coalition progressives, the Wellstone progressives, the the Green progressives, the Kucinich progressives, and the Dean progressives, have all silenced themselves and anyone who would dare dissent from the dominant Democratic Party message (brought to you by the special interest money that they all were busy bashing back in primary season). Again, from AlterNet: "The DNC opened on a conspicuously military note. The first few acts included: Gen. Wes Clark, an Iraq/Kosovo vet reciting the Pledge, Kerry's "Band of Brothers" from Vietnam, Generals and Admirals from all branches of the military..." From The Nation: " Rosa DeLauro, the savvy Connecticut Congresswoman whom Democratic leaders and the Kerry for President campaign put in charge of drafting the party's 2004 platform, says, "It reflects John Kerry. It reinforces who John Kerry is." Unfortunately, DeLauro is right. Instead of a manifesto for change that might attract new support, or at least energize the base, the platform that delegates to the Democratic National Convention are expected to approve without debate is a tepid document largely defined by Senator Kerry's fear of being identified as a liberal – let alone as a progressive seeking to surf what polls suggest is a rising tide of antiwar sentiment." |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:46 PM (#1235606) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Jack the Sailor I guess they ought to rename it the protestor's soapbox and leave it at that. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:47 PM (#1235607) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Amos Please recall where the perversion of "Free speech" by creating cattle zones for its due exercise began (in this country, I mean): it was invented by the current administration. That the police in charge of the DNC are allowed to extend its use is a shame. It seems not even the Dems remember how to do freedom right. A |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:54 PM (#1235614) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Ellenpoly They didn't want Whoopie Goldberg around either. Well if they don't want Whoopie, I'm boycotting that damn thing. I'll only change my mind if they ask me to sing. (William Shatner chanelling through Ellenpoly while she checks to see whether she remembered to register to vote.) |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:57 PM (#1235617) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Thank god Michael Moore hasn't endorsed Kerry, at least. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 12:58 PM (#1235619) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Actually, the protest pen wasn't started on Dubya's watch. It was started on Clinton's. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:07 PM (#1235629) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: kendall They are all a bunch of self serving liars, democrats, republicans Greens etc. The question is, which ones do the most damage? |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:09 PM (#1235633) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Donuel So was oral sex. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:11 PM (#1235636) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth And once again, Kendall gets to the heart of the matter. Right on! Don Firth |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:16 PM (#1235638) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST So, does Theresa Heinz Kerry have bigger balls than her husband does? And if Senator Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) has enough of a backbone to criticize the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, why can't the spineless John Kerry and his Clinton Democrat cronies grow one too? From today's AP wire: "MIDDLETOWN, R.I. - Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee criticized the Bush administration on Tuesday for a "host of mistakes" in its postwar reconstruction of Iraq, saying the country is less secure than before and that basic infrastructure is still not working. The senator, who was the only Republican to vote against the White House war resolution in October 2002 leading up to the invasion of Iraq, said the U.S. effort will fail if the White House does not work more closely with other countries in the region and re-engage itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." And from Boston: Silence. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:21 PM (#1235643) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST The Democrats and Republicans definitely do the most damage, kendall. No other group/party/individual comes even remotely close to them. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:22 PM (#1235646) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd Sigh. Two options: 1) GUEST is a Republican shill, blaming the Democrats for things that the Republicans do more often and more egregiously. 2) GUEST is a Green, Nader supporter, or other liberal winger, enraged by his own impotence to harm the party that is philosophically further from him, and thus bent on harming the party closer to him instead. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:33 PM (#1235652) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Rapparee It's THEIR convention, not that of the Greens, the Libertarians, the Republicans, the Nazis, the Facists, the Communists, the Socialist Workers' Party, or anybody else. It's the convention for the Democrats. As such, it's like a private party: if you aren't invited, you can't come. If you crash it, you can be arrested. You have every right to speak your mind peaceably, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government for redress, etc. But it's still the Democratic National Convention, and as such the Democratic Party can and does have the final say on how it's run and who gets to speak. Live with it, or organize your own convention. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:50 PM (#1235667) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Midchuck I'm writing in Kendall in November. Peter. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 01:52 PM (#1235671) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Sorry Nerd, but I'm not a (spit) liberal. I'm an independent progressive leftist. I don't give a shit about the Democratic Party, it is true. I care, instead, about what is good for my country and the majority of it's citizens. I consider the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to be a sham of huge proportions, and don't mind saying so. If that pisses off the Democrats, then surely I've done a good job. Democratic Party special interest money has bought the silence of the party's grassroots. Democratic Party special interest money has bought the silence of it's political allies: unions, civil rights activists, the environmental lobby, the gay rights movement, etc ad nauseum. But don't take my word for it: What's Being Bought in Boston? Big Business has its Eye on Both Parties; but the Poor have the Ear of Neither See How They Fund Raytheon, Citibank, Chase Manhattan and Fleet Boston Help Finance the Most Expensive Convention in History Party On in Boston: How Corporations Spend Thousands to Wine and Dine Legislators The Democratic Party is no more my party than the Republican Party. I'm a patriotic American, not a political party apologist demanding political dissent from the party lines be silenced, like so many Mudcat posters are doing. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 02:08 PM (#1235686) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: CarolC I have always maintained that Rhode Island (my birth state) is the best state in the union. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:29 PM (#1235736) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd GUEST, you and I both know that the word "liberal" has been demonized by the right, and that those who call themselves "progressive leftists" would have called themselves "liberals" twenty years ago. I don't know what you mean by "(spit) liberal" but I assume you have either internalized some kind of self-hatred or are accusing me of trying to "pin a label" on you. Either way, your claim to be progressive to me means liberal. Leftist, of course, also means liberal. And independent merely means you are not in a party. So you're what used to be called a small-l liberal. Deal with it. I repeat, then, my second possibility: GUEST is a Green, Nader supporter, or other liberal winger, enraged by his own impotence to harm the party that is philosophically further from him, and thus bent on harming the party closer to him instead. In this particular election, you have two choices: Bush or Kerry. You can either choose to deal with that reality or not. If you do not, don't complain about Bush's administration during the next four years. I sympathize with your disillusionment with the parties. Go, be active, campaign in state and local races, get progressives into the system who can run for national office later. But don't think you can get someone more "progressive" or "leftist" than Kerry into the white house, because it ain't gonna happen in 2004, 2008 or even probably 2012. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:29 PM (#1235737) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick Rapaire is the one who has it right. If GUEST and those that think like her could get any traction then they would have the support of the people they purport to care about. What really has her jaundiced is that the megalomaniacal candidate she supports has less support this time than last. Rant on, but it ain't your party. Mick |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:42 PM (#1235746) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST "GUEST, you and I both know that the word "liberal" has been demonized by the right, and that those who call themselves "progressive leftists" would have called themselves "liberals" twenty years ago." WRONG. But just because you insist on wearing blinders and swallowing the mainstream media mantras doesn't mean I have to play your phony, disingenuous little game there, NERD. I am proudly, unabashedly, A FLAMING LEFT WINGER!!! Yes, today we use the word 'progressive' often enough to describe ourselves. But you have one thing VERY wrong. 'Progressive' isn't a euphemism for 'liberal'. It is a euphemism for 'radical left'. That is where I am now, where I have always been, and where I shall always remain. No suprise that Rapaire and Big Mick come down on the same side either. Jesse Jackson is a Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a Democrat. There are many green leaning Democrats. The majority of registered Democrats (and 80% of the current convention's delegates) are anti-war, and their views are being 100% ignored by the Democratic Party platform that will be voted on and adopted without any debate (which is as poison to the Democratic elite as it is the Republican elite)this week. Kucinich is a Democrat. Russ Feignold is a Democrat. Cynthia McKinney is a Democrat. Yet the Democratic Party elite have silenced them all. What Dave Dellinger (may he RIP) said at the 1968 Democratic National Convention is as true today as it was then: "Our position is that whoever the candidates are, and whatever the platforms, that we must stay in the streets and stay in active resistance or else there will be no peace." And let's not forget, the Democrats were running against a candidate every bit as evil as Dubya: Richard Nixon. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:44 PM (#1235747) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Oh and Nerd--this race isn't about who is in the White House: it is about who owns the process. HINT: It ain't John Kerry or George W. Bush. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:45 PM (#1235748) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Amos Oh,oy!! an anarchist Bolshie!! Such tsuris you should have!! A |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:46 PM (#1235749) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick It is also instructive to point out that GUEST is attempting, either through ignorance or intent, to muddy up the understanding of what the convention is. It is not, in these times, the place that the democracy of choosing occurs. Historically it was, but in the electronic age the caucuses/primaries have taken that over. The convention is the celebration, the victory party, so to speak. Sometimes there is a fight, but it is usually over party platform. Before old grumpy from the north gets going about how democracy has gone to hell, let's not forget the spirited debates here on Mudcat as the various candidates vigorously debated their agenda. And Kerry won. That, of course, is what really bothers our bitter friend. Her guys got waxed. Nader has reduced himself to a deal with the devil in the use of Republican surrogates to get his petition signed. If GUEST were honest, which isn't the case, s/he would admit that Nader is prostituting himself to the Republicans. And if you don't believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, then ask yourself why the Republican machine is putting the money and volunteers into his campaign. Mick |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:53 PM (#1235754) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST vote socialist they stand for the worker. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:56 PM (#1235757) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Wolfgang I'm obviously not going to vote, but if I would be allowed to vote I'd have a long look at Kerry and then I'd have a lot of complaints about him and his probable policy. I could write all my complaints and that would be quite a long list. I could name many people I'd like better than him on that job he applies for. And then I'd have a very short look at the only realistic alternative for that job, the person who at present has that job. This one glance would make it a very easy decision between the two candidates. They wouldn't admit it in public, but even a sizable percentage of German conservatives would prefer Kerry. But then, McGrath has sometimes reminded us that a European conservative could in the USA be considered to be left of the middle. He has said that half jokingly and half seriously and he's right. Wolfgang |
|
28 Jul 04 - 03:59 PM (#1235760) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Fuck you Mick, you haven't won anything. People who have been working on long term agendas and profound social, economic, and political change don't really even give a shit about the upcoming election. That is why Nader and Cobb are still in the race. It is their issues they want to see discussed. Many leftists are, this very week, calling into question the conventional Democratic Party wisdom, including some prominent labor leaders like this article from yesterday's Washington Post points out: SEIU Chief Says the Democrats Lack Fresh Ideas Stern Asserts That a Kerry Win Could Set Back Efforts to Reform the Party By David S. Broder Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 27, 2004; Page A13 BOSTON, July 26 -- Breaking sharply with the enforced harmony of the Democratic National Convention, the president of the largest AFL-CIO union said Monday that both organized labor and the Democratic Party might be better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election. Andrew L. Stern, the head of the 1.6 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in an interview with The Washington Post that both the party and its longtime ally, the labor movement, are "in deep crisis," devoid of new ideas and working with archaic structures. Stern argued that Kerry's election might stifle needed reform within the party and the labor movement." Another leftist thinker (rather than sheep in the fold follower, like yerself there, Big Mick), ZNet's Michael Albert, has this to say about the election hyperbole, and I agree with him 1000%: "I am constantly asked, nowadays, what should we do about the election? More often, I am told to work for Cobb, work for Nader, or work for Kerry. When I reply, I am often berated as an ultra left loon or a sniveling democrat, as the case may be. At ZNet I also see a stupendous volume of written election commentary. I see so much that even if most of it wasn't highly fractious and redundant, I would wonder if all the time going to eyeballing, debating, celebrating, investigating, and otherwise hyperventilating the election wasn't reducing attention going to other pursuits... Holding one's nose and voting for Kerry in contested states is a good thing to do, though I can certainly understand third party votes, even in contested states... It makes sense to run radical campaigns to build movement infrastructure, raise consciousness, and push mainstream candidates left. To these ends, I prefer Cobb to Nader because Cobb is about movement building and Nader has demonstrated since 2000 that he is a poor movement builder. Still, I can understand someone feeling differently... The benefits to Kerry of aggressive left support seem so minuscule (if they are even positive) as to make it politically inefficient for people well left of Kerry to move their attention away from long term priority activities toward his campaign. Indeed, it may even be electoral suicidal to put aside long term work since the deciding factor in the election will likely be elites' perceptions of the probability that Bush can function without disastrous movement and international response and derivative destabilization. Leftists setting aside our antiwar and other activities will diminish rather than increase elite fears. Instead of boosting Kerry we need to provide visible signs that militant opposition is growing. a self-proclaimed leftist relating to the campaign in a way that implies that Kerry or Clinton or Gore were or are good guys, and that considers any of these Democrats honest much less exemplary, and that fails to reiterate the ills of the Democratic Party, of our system of government, and of capitalism, is something I cannot understand." |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:07 PM (#1235764) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 Blow me guest. You wear your supposed "leftist" hat, but in reality you could care less about the people of this country. You only serve your cowardly ass. You can't think beyond your own nose and see what would be the biggest benefit for the majority of Americans. You are nothing more than a crank with a smidgen of knowledge and a lot of time on his hands. Wake up and look at what is really happening in this country. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:08 PM (#1235765) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick Yep, there is that vaunted intellect at work again. When one loses, just drop the F*** you bomb and that is that. What you are is angry and bitter. And out of touch with reality. Despite your posturing as someone who cares, as someone of depth, the first time someone takes issue with you, you fall back to the foul language. It is a pity, really, because you could do some good. Wolfgang, I agree with your assessment entirely. There are a number of areas where I have concerns with Kerry. But in this system one must work within to effect real change. There is no candidate who accurately reflects my views, but this one is close enough and if elected I will then go to work on specific concerns. Mick |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:28 PM (#1235778) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST I swear all the time, so any attempt to score debate points by accusing me of swearing is pretty stupid, even though it is certainly a predictable response from all you 'nice' middle class mainstream Democrat sheep. Here is more from Michael Albert of ZNet: "Regarding the two dominant parties, mainstream campaigns of course overwhelmingly disenfranchise and depoliticize people. This is why the media obliterated Howard Dean despite the fact that Dean is no less an ally of elite interests than Kerry is. I don't know why Dean's campaign morphed to the point of threatening to politicize young people and perhaps even poor people, but it did, and since that is the penultimate violation of elite interests in American politics, Dean's campaign had to be derailed, and it was. Evidencing the same underlying dynamics, Kerry will try to win the election not by contesting the allegiances of the 50% of the population that typically doesn't vote, but instead by fighting to win a majority of the 10% or so of swing voters in each state. In fact, if we count only swing states, this election will probably address primarily 4% of the voters and only 2% of the population. Now here is the thing. Whatever each person believes about these matters, at this point there is undoubtedly more benefit in his or her doing what he or she finds most warranted rather than wasting time berating other leftists for having a different viewpoint. By now the berating of other leftists is useless. Pretty much everyone on the left knows where they stand. Few if any leftists are likely to significantly change their approach. The only relevant new information that may surface between now and November will be indications of likely election voting, not positions of candidates or evidence of efficacy of campaigning. So let's just give up the left on left electioneering, is my advice. By doing so, we can collectively save a lot of time and avoid a lot of needless arguing. I certainly shudder every time our redundant efforts to beat Bush take the form of saying anything remotely nice about Kerry, who deserves nothing other than our steadfast opposition - hopefully when he is President, to be sure. And I shudder as well when our redundant efforts to beat Bush, or to urge others to do so, seem to be crowding out attention to the war, globalization, movement building per se, and so on. In short, I guess what I am saying is that whatever your electoral inclinations, at this point repetitive, redundant entreaties about Kerry and Bush from leftists to other leftists, and even about Nader and Cobb from leftists to other leftists, and probably also entreaties from leftists to more mainstream citizens about Kerry/Bush, are most likely not the most efficient way to productively manifest our insights and utilize our energies. So we are down to one debatable disagreement, it seems. In contested states should leftists spend any time trying to increase the vote for Cobb or Nader instead of being quiet or aiding Kerry? This is contentious. Logically, writing and speaking about it could affect people's choices. But I bet those who are for aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are against doing so that they should start doing it. And I bet those who are against aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are for doing so that they should stop doing it. So what is the point of reams of back and forth debate that can sour otherwise positive relations, I wonder? At this point, the arguments have been made. So why don't we just do our things, hopefully including non electoral things, leaving one another alone, and letting the results of our separate efforts impact subsequent choices? I bet all sides will be better off for it." So hey--why don't all you Kerry/Clinton Democrat suck-ups and ass kissers accept the fact that regardless of what YOU think everyone to the left of Attila the Hun ought to do this year, that you can't silence those of us who aren't willing to play along with the rules of the corporate two-party love fests, just to get rid of Bush no matter how much we think he needs to go? I don't check my conscience and soul at the door, just to do what YOU consider the most politically expedient thing. Hell, I don't even agree with what you define as politically expedient anyway. In my mind, voting for Nader is the most politically expedient thing to do for this election. Other than that, I'm not working for any party or any politicians this year. I'm working on the same issues I have been working on for the better part of the last 20 years, and working on them outside and well clear of the two party corporate political system. And I actually share Andrew Stern's opinion that a Bush win would be much better for the progressive left movements, for the US and world citizenry, and for the planet. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:34 PM (#1235783) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,Clint Keller It's despicable to not invite Moore & despicable to have a protest pen. But letting Bush stay in power because Kerry is nearly as bad makes no sense at all. We cannot elect Franklin D Roosevelt, or Lincoln, or Arthur Pendragon this election. This does not mean that we should keep Bush. I wasn't upset much when Bush got the presidency; I figured we'd just got the lesser of two clowns. I was wrong. To put it mildly. I can't think of anything that the Bush boys have done that isn't destructive, and Gore has made a lot of sense. Wolfgang & Big Mick have got it right. clint |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:44 PM (#1235792) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd One thing is clear: this supposed great thinker of the left doesn't know what "penultimate" means. It means, not "intensified-ultimate," as he uses it here, but "second to last," as in the penultimate page of a novel, or "I am about to chew my penultimate piece of gum; would you like the last piece?" You couldn't have a "penultimate violation" unless you were talking about a series of violations, of which you are singling out the last-but-one. In any case, it is sad that a so-called thinker could trot out such drivel as this: the deciding factor in the election will likely be elites' perceptions of the probability that Bush can function without disastrous movement and international response and derivative destabilization. Leftists setting aside our antiwar and other activities will diminish rather than increase elite fears. Instead of boosting Kerry we need to provide visible signs that militant opposition is growing. He is hopelessly obscure about who the "elites" are and what they are supposed to fear, suggesting that even HE doesn't quite know what he means here. But beyond that, it is simply another form of the spurious Naderite argument that "by being anti-Kerry activists we will actually help him win." Funny how that line of reasoning didn't work the last time, though, isn't it? |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:45 PM (#1235797) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST "Wolfgang & Big Mick have got it right." Uh, you forgot to add "in my opinion". I disagree. I think they are both wrong. 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. We need a militant progressive opposition to wrest control of the country from the corporate ruling elite. Voting for John Kerry will only change the decor at the White House, and lull the middle class liberals back to sleep. The fact that some of Kerry's policy stands are different than Bush's isn't as profoundly relevant as the 'Anybody But Bush' leaguers keep claiming, IMO. I'm going to vote for Nader, not work on the campaign of ANYONE or ANY PARTY this year, and keep agitating for more militant stands by progressives and liberals, to fight the evil that is corporate domination, globalization, perpetual war, perpetual slavery for most of the world's citizens, and the complete destruction of the planet so my grandkids have a world to inherit that doesn't imprison them or eat their souls. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:54 PM (#1235803) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd Aah, now GUEST finally comes out and says it: he wants Bush to win because it will move middle-class Democrats to the left! I got new for ya, GUEST. The left-wing says that every election and it's never worked yet! Also, you have to ask yourself what the consequences of your actions might be. Given the assault of the Bush administration on the courts, the environment and the consitution, I think you may rue the day you put Bush back in office. You may end up in a prison cell in Guantanamo for your political beliefs, while the US has a whole generation of radical-right court decisions eroding our constitutional liberties, and the earth is placed for good and all on the path to pollution death. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 04:55 PM (#1235804) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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..... That is laughable coming from one who spends so much time on the internet, with a cushy middle class job, and telling us all how ignorant we are. Perhaps one day we can rise to the level you are at. Mick |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:03 PM (#1235810) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Rapparee GUEST of the so-called Radical Left: I heard this shit back in the Sixties. I believed some of it then and I believe some of it now. But the "Revolution" died on May 4, 1970, in a hail of bullets at Kent State. Some days earlier, a similar hailstorm had occured at Jackson State. Suddenly, all the "Radicals" realized that hey, those police and National Guardsmen and soliers use REAL BULLETS!!! When they hit you, can be wounded or even KILLED DEAD!! Suddenly, it wasn't fun anymore. Yeah, some kept it up for a while afterwards. But it was effectively as dead as four in Ohio. Others of us decided that if what we believed was to succeed, maybe guerrilla warfare was the way. So we have worked towards the same ends in other ways, avoiding confrontation, slipping in through other doors. Ever see the results of a .30 caliber rifle bullet, GUEST? I have. It's ugly. If you want to go to Boston and protest and scream, have a good time. But remember that it's REAL tear gas, those are REAL clubs, and the cops have REAL bullets. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:14 PM (#1235818) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST "The left-wing says that every election and it's never worked yet!" Yeah? So what are you so afraid of with Nader and the Greens, then? The leaning of the courts isn't going to change significantly one way or the other with one presidential term, regardless of who controls the White House. Truly, the much more important focus in this year's elections are the Congressional races, which most of you, just like the mainstream media, is ignoring gleefully in favor of playing these rhetorical games over the import of the imperial presidency. Kerry has remained silent about the Patriot Act, and his civil rights voting history in the Senate has been lukewarm, at best. So your concerns about the assault on the Constitution rings hollow. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, remember? He hasn't spoken out AT ALL about the civil and human rights violations being perpetrated by this administration any more than he did during the Clinton administration. As to Kerry's pet theme, the environment. I have yet to see him make any kind of a stand that is pro-environment that in any way threatens his pro-free trade cronies in business and industry. No progressive could call his positions on environmental protection "progressive". They just aren't as regressive as Bush's. I'll stand with my union compatriots who are calling this year's entire election strategy, and the "business as usual" agenda of the AFL-CIO and the elite union bosses who are in bed with the corporate bosses, into question this year. I'm voting for Nader because I ALWAYS vote strategically, based upon the way the presidential electoral race is playing itself out. If I didn't think it was important to support Nader and what he is saying, I wouldn't vote for him, or defend his right to run regardless of the impact on the Bush/Kerry race. Nader represents the best argued, most rational, militant opposition to the Kerry/Edwards ticket, IMO, although I also feel David Cobb and the Greens also deserve to be supported and voted for, for those who have the option. I just don't believe that the "Anybody But Bush" contingency, be they Democrats, Greens, or independents, is pursuing the best strategy for the long term struggle for change in this country. And I'm voting strategically in this election for the long term strategy, not the short term, just to get rid of Bush. I really don't share the views of most liberals that replacing Bush with Kerry will constitute a major improvement in peoples' lives--especially the working poor and poor peoples' lives. I believe that voting for Kerry will truly prolong their suffering, not ammeliorate it. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:19 PM (#1235825) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Rapaire, imagine my surprise that you think selling out is a positive option, because being shot at and teargassed isn't 'fun'. Just because cowards like you run away when the heat comes down on the protestors, doesn't mean every one on the left does. Besides, you are about as far from being on the radical left as Pat Buchanan, so I'm not exactly going to take your word for shit! |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:34 PM (#1235839) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 Guest, you've only seen a protest on TV. You assume that radical left is something to be proud of, it is nothing more than a mirror image of the radical right. Selling out? Give it a rest. You live in your own vacuum. No wonder you can't get laid. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:35 PM (#1235840) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 No one is afraid of Nader or the Green Party. We didn't buy their bullshit like you seem to enjoy swallowing. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:38 PM (#1235842) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 ... and do some howework. Jackson State happened AFTER Kent State, not before. As if you were even born then. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM (#1235853) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth Same old same old. I'd a helluva lot rather be a somewhat cynical and politically realistic live force inside the Democratic Party, doing everything I can do to steer it in the direction I think it should go than a starry-eyed idealist with not the foggiest idea of how to accomplish things other that to scream and yell and throw things and wind up in a jail cell with my eyes smarting from tear gas (or lying there in the morgue with a bullet in my chest and a tag on my toe), but with my "integrity" intact. And rather than just sitting around on the outside ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party sucks, or pouring my energies into a third party candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, I can accomplish a helluva lot more working inside the Democratic Party. At least it has a chance of winning in November and ousting Bush. And I don't have to accept the way the party is. I can do my damnedest to change it. What does your integrity tell you to do? Do nothing but bitch and complain, go down with a lost cause, or actually do something that may fail, but at least it has a chance of accomplishing real change? Don Firth |
|
28 Jul 04 - 06:12 PM (#1235868) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Interesting claim there, Don. Just how will electing John Kerry president of the United States accomplish real change? BTW, I don't begrudge any Democrats the right to do what their conscience tells them to do. I do have problems with Democrats telling me and every other non-Democrat, how to vote. Which is what the "Anybody But Bush" leaguers are doing, as Michael Albert of ZNet pointed out. Democrats like yourself hold no moral high ground above the rest of us who plan to vote against Bush, but by voting for the candidate we feel is the best candidate to represent our interests. Just because our candidate can't win, doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for them, or that we are lacking in integrity. What I'm saying isn't about bitching and complaining. It is about keeping the progressive agenda alive in an presidential election year when all the conventional, mainstream two party corporate system are doing their very best to kill it off, and silence genuine disagreement and debate of the issues. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM (#1235901) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth GUEST, if you can't see that there is a substantial difference between Bush and Kerry, then I'm afraid your just not paying attention--or don't want to see. Kerry is not my ideal choice. I was not offered an ideal choice (and no, not Nader, not nohow!). Dennis Kucinich was the nearest. His "Ten Key Issues" statement convinced me of that. Even though I knew he wasn't going to get the nomination, I still voted for him in my neighborhood caucus. I have already voted my conscience. Now, I work for and will vote for the best choice I am offered. The choices consist of Bush, Nader, and Kerry. In making my choice, there is an element of "anybody but Bush." I call that "damage control." I admire Nader for many of the things he has done in the past, but a) even it he had a chance of winning, for several reasons I don't think he would make a good president: and b) I think, especially after what happened in 2000, he's being a spoiler and an egotistical twit. Therefore, I will work for and vote for John Kerry. Not my ideal, but the best of the choices I am offered. And far preferable to either Bush or Nader. Don Firth |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:04 PM (#1235905) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth . . . and, I might add, once the election is over, no matter who wins, I will continue to work within the Democratic Party. I will do my bitching, complaining, yelling, and pushing and shoving there, along with a whole bunch of others of like mind, to steer the party into a more progressive direction. It isn't going to happen overnight, and a lot of people are still not going to be pleased, but that is how real change is accomplished. Don Firth |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:14 PM (#1235911) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Depending upon the state you live in, you have more candidate options than just Nader, Kerry, and Bush. Because you choose to be dismissive about them because they have no chance of winning doesn't mean they aren't legitimate choices. Any presidential candidate who makes it onto a ballot is a legitimate choice for president, regardless of how cynical and jaded you are about them based upon your 'damage control' logic, Don. It is fine if you think Kerry is preferable to Nader. It is fine if I think Nader is preferable to Kerry. It is fine if another person thinks Bush is preferable to Kerry or Nader. And it is fine if yet another thinks Cobb is preferable to Bush, Nader, or Kerry. We are all Americans, and we really aren't as blinkered as the jaded Rove Republicans and angry and cynical "Anybody But Bush" Democrats keep making us out to be. We didn't get down this rat hole just because of Bush and the Republicans. Clinton and the Democrats are just as much to blame. Voting for Kerry won't do a single thing to change about that power dynamic, despite Kerry being less regressive than Bush. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:26 PM (#1235913) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Don, 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. You see, that is the problem I have with the absolutists like you. I think we need people both inside and out pushing for change. Because I choose to take the position of the militant opposition working outside the system, doesn't make me Satan. I am just as loyal a patriot, just as pragmatic and intelligent and thoughtful as anyone working from inside the system. But 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. I'm a long view type person. Changing horses in a horse race doesn't have much impact in the long run. I agree it might have a significant impact in the short term. But in the long term, a vote for Kerry or Bush will mean essentially the same thing: a vote to continue on with and protect the status quo and the interests of the global ruling elite. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:30 PM (#1235915) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth 1. Bush, no chance for change. It'll just get worse. 2. Nader, no matter what he tried to do, would be bucking a hostile Congress and would accomplish nothing. 3. Kerry, there is at least a glimmer of a chance. Better a forlorn hope than no hope at all. Don Firth |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:33 PM (#1235919) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Rapparee 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. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:50 PM (#1235929) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 07:50 PM (#1235930) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 "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. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 08:06 PM (#1235939) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM (#1235942) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Peace If democracy really worked, we wouldn't need it. |
|
28 Jul 04 - 08:20 PM (#1235949) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 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!! |
|
28 Jul 04 - 09:04 PM (#1235981) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 01:22 AM (#1236095) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 08:57 AM (#1236278) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:15 AM (#1236286) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Rapparee Bush-Ashcroft-Ridge stoolie. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:36 AM (#1236301) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: InOBU 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:50 AM (#1236306) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:50 AM (#1236307) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,Observer 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 ! ! ! |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:14 AM (#1236318) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 "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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:17 AM (#1236322) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST And the reasons for voting for John Kerry instead of Ralph Nader or David Cobb are...??? |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:33 AM (#1236331) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:35 AM (#1236332) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd 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? |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:35 AM (#1236333) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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? |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:37 AM (#1236335) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 10:58 AM (#1236348) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 "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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 11:24 AM (#1236365) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 11:27 AM (#1236367) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 11:33 AM (#1236373) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 12:15 PM (#1236407) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd 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! |
|
29 Jul 04 - 12:21 PM (#1236411) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 12:46 PM (#1236434) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 12:47 PM (#1236436) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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... |
|
29 Jul 04 - 01:01 PM (#1236444) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 01:04 PM (#1236445) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 01:19 PM (#1236460) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 01:35 PM (#1236468) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Don Firth 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 02:00 PM (#1236482) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 "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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 02:17 PM (#1236492) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 02:41 PM (#1236505) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,Larry K 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 03:23 PM (#1236526) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 04:29 PM (#1236567) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 05:37 PM (#1236615) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST "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! |
|
29 Jul 04 - 05:39 PM (#1236617) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,RichKimmel 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM (#1236626) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 06:20 PM (#1236658) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 07:20 PM (#1236707) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 08:06 PM (#1236727) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 "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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM (#1236728) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST "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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 08:10 PM (#1236729) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,richkimmel 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. |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:10 PM (#1236761) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,richKimmel 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? |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:11 PM (#1236762) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:28 PM (#1236776) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,rich kimmel 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:38 PM (#1236785) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:39 PM (#1236786) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick 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 |
|
29 Jul 04 - 09:55 PM (#1236790) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,rayofsunshine kimmel 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. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 12:23 AM (#1236846) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd GUEST, my point is you have said you would choose a naked, cold death on the street over working with the political parties. This undercuts your claim that it's about choosing a more beautiful life. It's clearly about ANYTHING being better than working with parties for you, not about a more or less beautiful life. It's about hatred of the system, not a positive choice. Here's what I think. By taking the stance that anyone with a chance of being elected is not worth your time, you absolve yourself of all responsibility. You don't have to achieve anything; in fact if you DID achieve anything it would undermine your worldview that it's all stacked against you. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 01:02 AM (#1236858) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Kill the messenger! Kill! Kill! Kill! |
|
30 Jul 04 - 03:32 AM (#1236901) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Nerd Not the messenger, GUEST. It's the inherently self-contradictory and thus dishonest MESSAGE I have consistently argued with. If you can't type a few posts without contradicting yourself, it becomes pointless to read your posts. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM (#1237078) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Doesn't matter, the thread is dead Nerd. Once everyone starts attacking the person rather than addressing the issue, the thread is a flame fest, and there is no longer any point in participating. Especially with sanctimonious mothers of too precious four year olds. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 10:47 AM (#1237142) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,rich kimmel how exactly can a four year old be too precious? Seriously. Give it up dude. You proclaim the thread to be dead because you shot yourself in the foot big time and you have no way to claim moral superiority now. You know very well I'm not sanctimonious just as you know that four year olds, be they american iraqi malawian, are not expendable - I just took you by surprise by being entrenched in and just as knowledgable as you pretend to be about leftist politics but confessing to be honestly confused about what to do about this election. It seems it has become more important for you to condemn than discuss. You need to spend WAY less time tooting your own horn and do some actual work to make a difference. Or is your CHOICE to be "an artist living on the fringe" enough to absolve you from anything more productive than snide remarks and occasionally regurgitating things you read on Z. You are not a martyr, you are part of the problem. Face it and do something about it. You are just as dead as the thread darlin'. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 01:41 PM (#1237252) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST And your post has what exactly to do with the censorship at the DNC or the election? Oh right. You don't want to talk politics. You just want to play the flame game with the person whose opinions you disagree with--or is it because I took some shots at Big Mick? Maybe you are one of those Mudcat Defenders, Ms My Babys So Precious. My feet are working as well as your flame thrower. I'll leave the morally superior high ground to you and Big Mick. I am now carrying on this same conversation elsewhere, so this thread hardly matters. You're just disappointed that I won't play your lame game. So long, toots. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 02:27 PM (#1237289) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 what an ass. Guest, if you wished to DISCUSS politics, you never showed it. When someone challenged your points you either ignored the challenge or attacked the poster. You are nothing but a cowardly weasel who talks a good game but never commits. Artist? That is very doubtful. Art usually celebrates the human spirit. You have shown that you are souless. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 02:37 PM (#1237298) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Guest 2, I believe you have me confused with someone who gives a shit about your opinions. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 02:40 PM (#1237302) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: Big Mick If you didn't care, why did you respond? If this thread is dead, why do you come back? Simple, it is because you enjoy the abuse. Please, dearie, take a night away from the your ivory tower and see a counselor. It is amazing what they can do with drugs. Mick |
|
30 Jul 04 - 02:49 PM (#1237312) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 of course you give a shit! The only reason you are posting is because it makes you feel important. The fact that everyone else sees through your BS really bothers you and you reacts the way you do. It doesn't take a shrink to read your posts and figure out that you are a guy that has been a lazyass most of your life and you lash out and blame everyone else for your problems. You fancy yourself a radical because you seek an easy answer. As soon as someone comes back at you with logic you panic and start attacking them, with "witty" comebacks such as "yu have me confused with someone who gives a shit about your opinions". Brilliant! What's next, "I'm rubber and your glue"? Go back to school. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 02:52 PM (#1237315) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST Thanks for showing me the light Mick. My returning to the thread is a sign of mental illness, but you doing it proves you Mr. Well Adjusted? I don't think so! I keep coming back for the jaunty dialogue. I don't give a shit what you think of me Mick, just like I don't give a shit what anybody here thinks of me. You, on the other hand, keep coming back for your holier than thou moral reasons, which makes you a bloody glutton for punishment. So have it your way. You keep coming after me Mick, and I'll give as good as I get. I got no qualms about it. |
|
30 Jul 04 - 03:52 PM (#1237358) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention From: GUEST,2 You consider what you give to be "good"? You seem like a lightweight with the arguements you've given here. Not much of a challenge |