Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Noam Chomsky on Obama: Worse than Bush and Blair

Posted 9 years ago on June 27, 2012, 5:20 a.m. EST by WageSlave (117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Look at the record, says Chomsky: Obama is in many cases worse than George Bush and Tony Blair -- on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt -- and would be indicted for war crimes if the Nuremburg principles were applied."




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

The debate in this thread serves to point out that these four year dictatorships are the real problem. There should be no parties at all, do away with elected' representatives, and form a system around public debate on the actual issues, not guesses as to what some 'representative' may or may not do in the future,. If we have a moderated public forum debate, (even practical knowledge tests to enter some debates) and then public votes, on the directions to be taken, we will do away with the corruption of representatives we currently suffer.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree. Political party labels hide the important issues. And elections are too reliant on partisanship and how well of a car salesman each candidate is. Not enough emphasis is put on actual policy positions. Before the 2008 presidential election, a poll was conducted at the Berkeley Carroll School in New York City. It included third party candidates Nader, Barr and McKinney. Their identity was withheld and the students (almost exclusively supportive of Obama and McCain) voted blindly on their platforms and records alone. Ralph Nader won in a shocking (to them) landslide. 43% for Nader, 29% for Obama, 17% for McKinney, 4% for McCain and 2% for Barr. Frankly, I'm surprised Obama even beat McKinney. I have a feeling students that were already biased in favor of Obama recognized aspects of his record and voted on that. It is very surprising McCain got just 4%.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 9 years ago

If ballots didn't have D or R next to the candidates names, the voters wouldn't know who to vote for.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Yet I heard Chomsky on NPR not so long ago a couple of weeks I think, saying if he lived in a swing state he'd probably vote for Obama. Why is that?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

It seems the gatekeepers and gov't paid dissenters (Stalin: How do you handle dissent? You lead it) are falling in line with a useless third party strategy. David Swanson is another. Useless to us that is, for them it would install Romney.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

Or perhaps, life if more complex than a single vote once every four years, can effectively deal with? That yes Obama is terrible on foreign policy and constitutional freedom at home,. yet would still be marginally better than Mittens for many poor and working class Americans quality of life? Could it be that some analysis is not single dimensional and blinded by partisan faith???

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

For the world, it would be better for America's puppet masters to present its true ugly face -- Romney, the war monger, neocon and economic looter. The world would know and recognize what it is dealing with.

For those of us who live here, a Romney admin could be a physical danger. Look what happened in Indonesia (after Suharto was overthrown), Chile (1973), and Argentina. Deadly forces of fascism and exploitation are always just below the surface.

OWS is resisting the complete subjugation of the individual to corporate power. Under which administration would OWS face harsher countermeasures?

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

History doesn't back you up on that. Third parties brought us the end to slavery, women's rights, child labor laws, reduced work hours, social security and more! They won zero elections to make it happen. Third parties on that basis have been proven historically important. To me, its third party or nothing. Obama and Romney talk different but act the same. Voting for either means you approve of the status quo.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Third parties or struggle outside the electoral system? Like a Civil War, and a militant union movement and feminist movement etc. And The Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin D. were both elected from major parties and more or less ratified what was being demanded outside the voting booth.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Third party candidates.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

In many instances I am sure you are correct. However, historically, third parties have indeed been used to manipulate elections: Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party gave us Wilson and the Fed, John Anderson helped give us Reagan, Ratf*ck Ralph Nader stabbed Gore in the back, giving us GW.

We need to push for Instant Runoff Voting (where you vote for your top two candidates).

Moreover it seems to me that something is going on now, today. There seems to be a concerted campaign by the powers behind the curtain to engineer a Romney "win". If the pet gatekeepers can push voters to sit this one out, that would help bring that result about.

Figurehead or not, Obama controls certain levers of power. Would you rather have them 100% in the control of the Return of the Neocons?

[-] 5 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Sure, let's take shots at Ralph Nader some more. The guy that brought us seat belts, air bags, the clean air act, clean water act, nutrition facts, and so on. More democrat propaganda. Blame Ralph so we don't have to change! I'm glad Gore lost because it COULD have signaled some soul searching from the democrats. Instead, they pointed the finger at Nader and the public sadly bought that excuse and let the democrats off the hook for being abominable. HOWEVER, I will repost a response I posted to somebody else last night:

First, Gore won the election, it was stolen from him even with Nader taking some votes away. Second, if Gore had a backbone he would have beat Bush in a landslide and Nader wouldn't have been FORCED to run. Gore ran an abysmal campaign and rightfully got what he deserved. Third, a quarter MILLION registered democrats IN FLORIDA voted for Bush. Fourth, the U.S. is one of the FEW democratic countries with only two political parties -- and IT SHOWS!! Least worst political strategy is pathetic. Look where it got us! Finally, there is ZERO EVIDENCE Gore even would have been an improvement. Case in point: Barack Obama. Bush 2.0. You fell for the corporate democrat fear mongering hook, line and sinker. You're not the only one though, and we're suffering from it. Fear is the #1 propaganda strategy, and it works wonders on fearful democrats who hypocritically laugh at republicans for the same on buying war justifications.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Gore rolled over and played possum after his election was stolen. Same with that other ratfuck, Kerry.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

A million or so dead Iraqis might disagree with you if they could.

'WageSlave' -- remember that name.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

"A million or so dead Iraqis might disagree with you if they could." Some people just can't see past this country. You are so right!

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Remember the Clinton-Gore years? How many did their economic sanctions kill in Iraq? What evidence do you have to offer that Gore would not have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? He was every bit as much a corporate sellout as Bush.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Nader ran on the bullshit that Gore was getting his money from the same people as Bush, rich people, well DUD, "forced to run" bullshit he just had to put his oversized head into every TV in the country trying to buildup his personal ego, he figured if America had a lick of sense Gore would win running away with it and he could grab some easy fame, well it gave us Bush because he didn't work his ass off for the environmentalist and instead let the oil man win, so yeah you known what I say:

Nader the traitor has crawled under a rock,

It’s the only place safe from the things that he wrot.

As millennia approached us, we had one last shot,

To keep the planet we’re on from getting, too damn hot.

But Nader thought better his name should be heard.

And Gore was left standing with only his word.

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

1: Gore WAS getting his money from the same corporate sponsors.

2: That wasn't all Nader had to go on. Not by a long shot.

The Clinton-Gore administration bombed Iraq and engaged in economic sanctions that resulted in the deaths of countless children. We can thank the Clinton-Gore administration for NAFTA and GATT, too. Oh, and all that slick talk Gore did on the environment? You would think fuel efficiency would matter to them. In fact, they willingly dismissed calls for safety and efficiency changes. Instead, they did not work to improve fuel efficiency and this led the Bush campaign to push for more drilling rather than reduced consumption through increased efficiency. What did the Clinton-Gore administration do to help protect workers exposed to toxic chemicals? How about Al Gore's PERSONAL impact on expensive AIDS medications in Africa, while lobbying on behalf of greedy U.S. corporation Merk and Pfizer, that could have cost possibly millions of lives ($20,000 per treatment)? Gore frequently voted against gay rights. He voted for Antonin Scalia. Gore sat on the FDA and RU-486. The Clinton-Gore administration was very much in favor of for-profit prison's as well as capital punishment.They also opened up large areas for drilling in northern Alaska and proposed 6 million acres off the coast of Florida for exploration (contrast that with the outrage by Gore supporters on Bush's plans to drill -- Bush was talking about only 1.5 million acres off of Florida). The New York Times on July 8th remarked on the Clinton-Gore convergence with Republicans on destroying civil liberties, referring to their record as "abysmal." Where did Gore stand on Taft-Hartley? Tort reform?

Your hate is severely misguided. Gore could have crucified Bush on his abominable record, but then again he couldn't. Why? Because it would open him up to identical attacks. He would be a hypocrite. He had his hands tied with corporate dollars.

With a name like "factsrfun" I am disappointed with your opinionated, emotional diatribe.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Wow that is one complete right wing attack you hit on pretty much every point, even that Gore uses gas, and here i thought you were well intended, you really here to defend Bush? He was a victim of Gore? What a hoot!!!

Here’s a fact for ya, over a hundred thousand saps in Florida voted for Nader and you are hell bent on keeping things just the way they are with the left divided and the right united.

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

I wasn't aware environmental issues constituted right wing attacks. I was under the impression liberals were the ones that cared about the environment. I also wasn't aware that Republicans were the ones against NAFTA and GATT, or against capital punishment, or for gay rights and morning after pills, or for less offshore oil drilling, or for less pandering to drug companies. Show me where I defended Bush, aside from the point that Gore supporters (perhaps unknowningly) shrieked and howled over Bush's proposal to explore for oil in an area of 1.5 million acres off the coast of Florida, while Clinton-Gore proposed 6 million? Which is true, but it certainly wasn't an endorsement of Bush's plan, either. I flat out said that Gore could have crucified Bush on many issues, but there was too much convergence for him to do so.

Over a hundred thousand, huh? And the QUARTER MILLION democrats that voted for Bush IN FLORIDA had no impact, right? That's more than TEN TIMES the amount of registered democrats that voted for Nader. Or the fact that Gore was the first president in decades not to win his home state?

You call Gore an environmentalist, but ignore the Everglades/airport issue, the East Liverpool incinerator, and the salmon-saving dam-breaching indecision? Or how about the coal barons blowing off mountaintops in the Appalachian coal fields? Or his stance on nuclear power?? What the hell is your definition of an environmentalist??? Just because he made a film on global warming? Even though he was criticized even for his book in the 90s by environmental groups for being a hypocrite in policy decisions thereafter?

My argument here is not in favor of Bush, and you know that. I am critical of the corporate democrats that don't deserve our votes if they are going to take us for granted. Gore had a horrible record, ran an abysmal campaign and has nobody to blame but himself. I'm sorry, but democrat, republican, green party or libertarian -- I refuse to accept such low standards!

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Strategically, biting the bullet for 4 years is better than waiting 50 years constantly voting for garbage democrat nominees constantly hoping "maybe next time they will nominate someone better... I hope?" We are at way too urgent a crossroads given the state of the environment and with our consumerist tendencies to keep waiting around 4-8 more years for a good candidate to come along. Enough is enough. It's do or die. I've had enough of this least worst politics. It's a weak strategy that accomplishes nothing of value and is perpetuated by fear which is the hallmark of propaganda.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I think anyone who expects anything good of economic matters for the 99 percent from Obama is dreaming. The point I and others are making is that the alternative is far worse. For me the struggle is mainly that of demonstrations, direct actions of various kinds. Voting to slow down the most rabid elements of the one percent is just a part of the picture.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

The only way to influence the democratic party is with our votes. Fear is the number one propaganda tool. Who needs a dictatorship when you have an electoral system like this? Until people stop benefiting the party with their votes, we are doomed. It's an impossibility to elect a legitimate candidate with the state of campaign donations. There is no other choice. In an election between Hitler and Stalin, would you play lesser of two evils? Or would you vote for a sane third party candidate so at least you don't vote for your own demise? I refuse to accept this trash.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

I would vote 3rd party; but as Stalin said, and so true in the US today ........

"It's not the vote that counts. It's who counts the votes."

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

The Western world did choose to ally tentatively with Stalin against Hitler.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Also it was not votes for anyone that got the civil rights legislation passed. It was struggle on many levels including militant uprisings.





[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Had the Communists in Germany allied with the social democrats they probably could have stopped Hitler. Instead they were tooting silly slogans such as "after Hitler us" and "Fascism is a matter of taste" and "social democracy is social fascism." So their rank and file perished in the concentration camps while the brilliant ones who pushed this stuff mainly were able to go into exile. After a term of Romney plus a tea party congress plus them picking two more Supreme Court justices where do you think things will be? Do you need government services? Do you want to fight in still another neo con inspired war? I say it's simple to cast a vote, it isn't like getting married and it doesn't stop anyone from doing any other political act.


[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

You know, the third party options don't end with Jill Stein on the left. Gary Johnson is running on the libertarian ticket. Both Stein and Johnson surprisingly qualified for matching funds. Promote third parties as an option to BOTH sides. If only the two party system consisted of Green Party vs. Libertarians....

I won't roll over and accept mediocrity out of fear. You do realize that's the only thing the Democrats have going for them, right? And it's the most basic propaganda tool as I keep repeating. If you have to vote on fear, you DO NOT have a democracy. A democracy requires politics of courage, not the politics of fear.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

They say just because one is paranoid it doesn't mean that "they're" not out to get him. And just because people are afraid doesn't mean there's nothing to be afraid of.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

Romney is simply too dangerous, imo.

[-] 3 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

If we can't vote our conscience, we don't really have truly free, democratic elections. If we don't put pressure on the democrats, they won't ever change. We can't keep waiting or we will be toast in just a few short years anyway at our rates of consumption, pollution and environmental destruction (not to mention nuke baiting). I refuse to opt for the slower death. I choose life.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

"If we can't vote our conscience, we don't really have truly free, democratic elections"

I could not agree more.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

"we don't really have truly free, democratic elections"" That's already the case. Why do you think the republicans stole the elections of '00 and 04? Why do you think they are striving mightily to stop poor people and students from voting in around 27 states? Why do you think the money has shifted so decisively to the Republicans?

Politics is not about anyone's pure soul, it's about doing what is in your best interests and trying to get others to do what is in your best interests.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

You have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Others visit these forums and peruse them, even find them on google. Hence my words were not wasted, even if wasted on you.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

That being the case, I think those living in swing states should vote based on the best interest of not allowing a republican win, and those living in states where the vote does not matter should vote their conscious - best of both worlds, imho.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

If Obama wins it should be with a significant majority of the popular vote and if he looses the electoral vote he still should get a majority of the popular vote. This is about the moral authority of the next winner. Also I would not be very surprised if Obama were to loose the popular vote but take the electors there would be major disturbances from the fascists.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

The third party vote is the moral voice.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I'll repeat: " I would not be very surprised if Obama were to loose the popular vote but take the electors there would be major disturbances from the fascists."

I would want to try to head that off and also oppose it as best I could were it to come about.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Jill Stein isn't the only third party candidate. Gary Johnson is running for the libertarians. If more people voted third party, things would shape up real quick. The least worst excuse goes back decades. It is the cause of our problems, not the solution. Until people realize that, we're stuck with the current state of affairs. With a soon to be runaway greenhouse effect, dwindling fresh water supplies, peak oil and many other crises -- we cannot afford to keep voting least worst. It never has worked and it never, ever will.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I don't think voting is the main thing progressives should be involved in. If not Occupy, then some other activist organization. Regardless of who wins the election we need 500 Montreals. My thoughts are about how to make that more likely, not less likely.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

I never said it was the MAIN thing progressives should do. On the contrary, it is the LEAST we could do. It's virtually effortless. Promote a third party ticket to friends and family at your discretion and show up on election day to press a button or check a name off. Easy. That's not a massive undertaking. We can multitask.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

True. But this time it matters who wins.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Same shit different day.

That's the excuse for every election for as far back as I can remember. "This time it matters." Oh, so the Gore defeat was no biggie? It didn't matter so much then? Despite the decade long tantrum thrown by liberal democrats who willingly gave up their leverage to point the finger at Ralph Nader when they could have used the "spoiled" loss as an opportunity to press for instant runoff voting or for some change from within? Maybe then we would have only had 4 years of Bush, but no, liberal democrats just never learn their lesson. They allow the corporate democratic party to take advantage of their blind, loyal votes fostered by fear mongering. The 2004 election was "too important" too, and so they didn't push for a good candidate. Or in 2008 with Obama. And now 2012 with Obama again. Does anyone else share my outrage and frustration? In all cases, there were glaring holes and red flags galore in the party nominee, but democrat voters have been content with mediocrity (at least when it comes to their voting standards). So we continue to spin our wheels while speeding toward oblivion -- with or without the republicans in charge.

I'm sorry, I just cannot accept this injustice.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I am as outraged as you are. I haven't voted since 1968 when I wrote in Eldridge Cleaver. The system is fraudulent, I agree with you. Politics is not about proclaiming one's inner purity though, it's about making things happen. The electoral base of Obama and that of Romney are quite different. I happen to understand that the Obama base is the one that has the progressive and revolutionary potential, while the Romney base is fascistic. One or the other is going to get momentum and one or the other is going to take a body blow. I want pessimistic defeatist fascists, not fascists on a tear.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago
[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

There is not going to be any reform of the electoral process without massive earth shaking actions in the streets and campuses.

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

That's for sure.

[-] -2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I agree. But different official dissidents and gatekeepers are given different tasks. IMO Chomsky is a gatekeeper extraordinaire but even I can agree with him sometimes.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

keeping what from whom - mainstream media won't touch him so who exactly is he serving as gatekeeper. maybe you fell that way because he slaps the little boys who like to throw rocks - can't think of what else it might be - so enlighten me

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

Of course, that's by design. Gatekeepers like Chomsky and Goodman tell 99 truths to sell one lie.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

you and frogman are idiots - and your truth - that amy won't tell - gatekeepers -wow - that is why they are so welcome on corporate media. that is why the elite love them - for their gatekeeping. oh, sorry i did not read carefully - stalin is also a dissenter - now you make sense, to someone, somewhere i am sure - you and your two friends wearing beanies and plotting baby anarchy.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

Amy Goodman has opened herself up to war crime charges -- see her coverage of the leadup to the Libya criminal aggressive war making, pure propaganda. I've also heard her lie/repeat lies on Syria. I rarely watch her anymore (RT's for me) so I don't know the extent of her Syrian war mongering.

Don't you understand what '99 truths to sell 1 lie' means?

The ground should be dug out from beneath her and Noam's feet.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

another gatekeeper? Which side are you on boys? Which side are you on? ROBERT FISK: Well I used the word tipping point a little bit cynically because it's a word that journalists and academics like to use.

I'm not sure, given the claws and the depth of the claws that the Baath Party of Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafiz al-Assad, have in the soil of Syria, whether we're going to see the toppling of this regime as quickly as Mr Obama and Madame Clinton and Mr Cameron would wish.

I rather think this will go on for a long time. There are a lot of supporters of the Baath Party regime. Not just members of the Shiite Alawite community and the Christians and the Druze, but others too, particularly among the Syrian bourgeoisie, the middle classes who support the regime.

I think this will be a very bloody and terrible war before it is concluded. And I think the idea that, you know, Mrs Clinton suddenly says this is terrible and Obama says it's awful, that's not going to end the war, unfortunately. ROBERT FISK: I wouldn't take too seriously anything he says, simply because whenever I've gone to the border and tried to see the Army, I've seen three or four different versions of it.

The fact of the matter is that the Syrian opposition, the armed opposition to Bashar al-Assad is so divided that it cannot be regarded as being a single united faction. What we've got to realise - and this is one of the reasons why Obama and Madame Clinton and all the other mountebanks and liars are saying what they're saying is that we don't know who the opposition is.

And since we don't know who the opposition is, all we can do - "we" being the West - is express our outrage against Bashar al-Assad and his Baathist regime. But we can't give too much support for the opposition, who may indeed include members of Al Qaeda, and whose members may indeed perhaps be involved in the Houla massacre. We don't know yet. I'm not saying that Bashar al-Assad is a good guy. He's not, he's a bad guy.

But you ...

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

so now i understand - if someone has 100 opinions and you disagree with 1 of them then they must be considered gatekeepers. maybe you should post all your opinions so we can know what to thiink - get the frogman to do it also - oh no, maybe you will disagree with him on some subject - then what - which what will be the gatekeeper then? i forgot that in the stalinist mind there is no room for disagreement - do you realize that north korea is looking for someone like you right now - they need leadership!

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

Do you own research big guy. Search Amy Goodman, DemocracyNow, Noam, etc. plus gatekeeper, controlled dissent, guided dissent, allowable dissent, pied piper, etc.. There's a lot of material out there. Why Amy and Noam still have any reputation left as good guys/gals is beyond me.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

done plenty of research little boy - i know too much about noam and amy to care what some of your stanist buddies say about them - i don't like secondary sources. i can read and come to my own opinion - you probably hate poor old howard zinn also - another gatekeeper. and i notice you did not respond to what i said - classic . maybe you are a maoist. go ahead - parade around in your ski mask feeling cool - throw some rocks and trash the people who are really in the trenchs - those who worked and sacrificed - and it is all beyond you - that is the punch line - shows your complete ignorace of the world! stalinist

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

grow up

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

What's a little mass murder between friends? Woman and baby-killing NATO terrorist armies.

Once a con is recognized, the free turkeys are no longer charitable.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

and who are you saying defended those nato armies? so is it only you who know the true path - help me oh enlightened one. and while you are at it maybe you can tell what have you done to save the world? or even one person - noam and amy do more in one day than you have done in your lifetime - just guessing here but you can correct me if i am wrong. Proverbs 20:11 It is by his deeds that a lad distinguishes himself - and your deeds other than talking with your rock throwing bros over latte??

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

and why did you feel the need to post that

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 9 years ago

Because Romney wouldn't change anything that obama has done wrong...and if you listen to him, would actually increase foreign intervention. There is no good choice this election....it's terrible.

[-] 3 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

In relative terms Obama has been dragging his feet as far as the Israel Firsters like Adelson are concerned. I know the choices in the election stink to heaven, and I know that the salvation of the human race, which I believe we are talking about, will be found in actions. We need fifty Montreals in North America.

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Chomsky endorsed Jill Stein for president via letter to the Green Party

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Likely he'll vote for her but what he said was that if he were living in a swing state he'd probably vote for Obama.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

cause Rimney's calling a soldiers the new greatest generation

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

i think it is mostly because of the supreme courts justices that will be appointed by the next pres

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

That would be a good enough reason by itself.

[-] -1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 9 years ago

Because Romney is much worse.

[-] 4 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Marginally worse. So when is there time to reform the democratic party? News flash: inside out reform is impossible. Vote for Obama and were stuck with this mess for 4 more years. After that? The democrats toss up another worthless corporate sellout. Even if Kucinich runs, least worst propaganda will rear its ugly head again. "Don't vote for Kucinich, he has no shot! We have to prevent the front runner from winning party nomination by voting for so-and-so." Voting democrat will continue to ensure we keep spinning our wheels and wondering why things keep getting worse (if we even have a democracy much longer). The democratic party needs to be kicked in the teeth. No change will occur until there's a third party revolution.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It isn't voting or not voting that causes us to spin our wheels. It's a lack of revolutionary leadership. We need fifty Montreals in North America vote or no vote. As far as I understand the students who got the stuff started in Montreal had leaders and specific demands (hint, hint)

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 9 years ago

"So when is there time to reform the democratic party?" All you have to do is show up. Just exactly like a GA. Are you saying that more people show up at local party meetings than show up at GAs? Have you actually checked?

Do you realize that most of those people agree with you already? Is this concept really that confusing? Power is sexy, btw. ;p

[-] 3 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Show up for what? Primaries? I have seen no reason for optimism looking back over the past few decades. The democrats aren't going to change, nor is their electorate, unless perhaps there is outside pressure, and they sure as hell aren't going to stop accepting corporate campaign funds. The Green Party accepts no corporate campaign donations, and I hope others follow their lead.

If we had instant runoff voting this would be a lot easier, but there again we can't expect change with business as usual. Having a spoiler affect further elections might actually accelerate the process of getting instant runoff voting passed. No spoiler and people won't see the point. It's frustrating, but true.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I think Hemp is talking about taking over Democrat precinct clubs. I can think of a hundred better things to do. We need fifty Montreals. No Dem club is going to give us that.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

I don't think there is any hope of righting the ship from the inside with the democrats anymore. They are run by corporate financing. It is near impossible to get a Kucinich-like candidate elected to even local offices anymore, and we see what happens when a candidate like Kucinich goes for it all. Progressives have been trying for 30 years now to right the ship, but it keeps sinking faster every single year. A third party revolution (on both sides of the political spectrum) would be the best solution.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

We need fifty Montreals.

[-] -1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 9 years ago

The Paulies do it.

"In Massachusetts, Paul’s Liberty Slate swept the Republican caucuses in April, stealing delegate spots that were expected to go to Romney’s friends and allies, whom he had selected. "


If you don't have enough people to take over a local Democratic party meeting when most of them are already with you you just don't have enough power to do anything more than whine, anyway.

[-] -1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

When the democratic party is "kicked in the teeth" from the right it's the democratic party base that will need a dentist. And won't have access to one.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Caught between a rock and a hard place.

America used to be such a great place to be.

Can you all just stop work for a month, and get rid of these parasites?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 9 years ago

When the Eurozone goes tits up and it plunges the world into a global depression you can expect things to get real interesting in the U.S.. When Americans all over the country wake up to unemployment over 20% with exploding personal debt and realize they have no chance at a happy life and their children will have a much lower standard of living than they expected, hopefully then they will realize that the global financial elite have been robbing them blind for the last 30yrs and you can expect a real revolt.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I fear that the side that believes in armed struggle and actually has and knows how to use firearms will have the upper hand. Do we need gun control or do we need to control some guns?

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 9 years ago

A revolt or a revolution? Revolutions have leaders and demands. Revolts don't and they end badly.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 9 years ago

Noam Chomsky endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein for prez in a letter to the Green Party...


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Where are the three amigos on this post?

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 9 years ago

oh, that has GOT to sting!

yeah, I'm talkin' to you, Lefty.