Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What if the war whore wins the democratic primary?

Posted 5 months ago on April 11, 2014, 4:53 a.m. EST by Shule (1976)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What happens if war whore Hillary actually wins the Democratic primary? How many progressives will vote for her? How zanny a nut job can the Republicans then put up to run against her and still have a reasonable chance of winning the U.S. Presidency?

152 Comments

152 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

2016 is done deal so what's up with 2024?

[-] 3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Hillary and Putin will be worth the price of admission. It's going to be funny.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 months ago

Limbaugh will cream his jeans!!

Apparently, you will too.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Limbaugh will cream. I'll be on a plane out of this country.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 months ago

Let's hope the Koch's haven't removed the FAA when you do.

Though one really must wonder, since they are all the same, why you're still here?

You should be long gone.

I would suggest at this time that there are fracking jobs available in Poland.

and of course the coal mines of Ukraine are always available.

Plus no worries about any of those pesky unions. I'm sure a smart feller like yourself can negotiate a great wage and safety contract.

http://www.vice.com/read/if-youre-sick-of-hearing-about-ukraine-try-living-there

[-] 0 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

There's little doubt that if she did win, those that voted for her would have a different type of leakage to worry about as things continued to get worse.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

She frightens me. A little.

[-] 3 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

She frightens me a lot. Like a loose pit bull in a shopping mall frothing at the mouth.

Anybody got a tranquilizer dart?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Ok kidding aside; I think Obama and Putin already have plans for Ukraine. A plan 'A', maybe a plan 'B'. Hillary is now playing bad cop to Obama's good cop. The US doesn't care about Hillary's russophobia. She's just being Hillary. Hillary will beat Jeb in 2016.

[-] 3 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Now you are frightening me...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago
[-] 2 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

Please state specifically why she frightens you. Is it because of her having been in power for so long or is it her personality?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

All kidding aside, this could be the scariest election ever. Hillary is leading the way with anti-Russian rhetoric and we could get a Paul, or even worse a Ryan. This does not look good at all.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Hey OWSers!! Long time no post.

The question is, will she run.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6592) from St Louis, MO 5 months ago

Very valid question.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by cordoba (21) from West Point, NY 5 months ago

You don't think that the neocons plan on leaving you Aussies behind in the new neocolonial World they are creating, do you?

Whether you are the dog who is wagging his tail or in this case the tail that is being wagged by the dog, we both have much to be concerned about, as borders & oceans will mean little.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Tammy Baldwin.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I think she already is.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Probably. She thinks America needs her. 32 years of boomer rule? Wow

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Wow, you are so witty. Another case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Amazing how someone who has never had presidential power is blamed for things that are actually crafted by presidents.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6592) from St Louis, MO 5 months ago

I don't believe there was any blame cast in the OP, however Hillary's pro-war stance is pretty well-known.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Name another presidential candidate besides Hillary Clinton who has been condemned for their war time positions. Don't fall for Clinton Derangement Syndrome. What matters is what a politician does when their vote actually matters. Barack Obama voted "present" as a way to not take a position so he could hedge his bet either way later on.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6592) from St Louis, MO 5 months ago

What matters is not simply a politician's vote, but what kind of person they really are. What does it say about a person when they laugh and giggle with sadistic glee at murder and assassination? She backed the plan to go to war with Syria despite the shakiest of evidence, evidence even top brass in the Pentagon thought didn't hold water. She backed the invasion of Iraq. She wants to go to war with Iran, even if it takes a false flag to instigate it. She's a neocon of the highest order.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

So the gassing of the kids was not done by the Syrian Government? Is that what you are stating? The invasion of Iraq is George Bush's war pure and simple.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6592) from St Louis, MO 5 months ago

There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that no, Assad did not gas his own people, and I cannot say definitively, but it's immaterial. Number one, I don't believe in the concept of America as the world's police, so we had no legitimate right to intervene in that affair.

Number two, you must understand that the neocon's desire to get involved in Syria has nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with the the New Great Game, i.e. control of resources (oil, gas, lithium, opium).

And lastly, my point was essentially about Hillary. Her neocon tendencies are pretty much beyond dispute.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

The natural resources argument I have made elsewhere. The Clintons are very much for energy independence. Bill Clinton regularly speaks about the importance of energy self reliance.

JImmy Carter was on the Letterman show recently and the story was told about how Carter had put up solar energy system on the White House. When Reagan came into office he had it taken down, apparently Mr. Reagan perceived the want for solar energy as a sign of weakness. I hope you can at least ascertain a basic philosophical difference when it comes to energy independence between democrats and republicans.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Hillary needs some good slogans;

She Ain't Rootin for Putin!!

Hill...2016

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Time for some gossip;

Bill Clinton Hates Chelsea Clinton’s Husband Marc Mezvinsky

http://www.showbizspy.com/article/261616/bill-clinton-hates-chelsea-clintons-husband-marc-mezvinsky.html

[-] 4 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Good dirt.

The Clintons may beat out Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie for the front page of the Enquirer.

Gotta Love it

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

What if, Hillary doesn't run or loses? It's possible. Dumb parents can have smart kids. Happens all the time. I think Chelsea could have a lot to offer as a politician.

Did Jen ever get married? I liked her in the movie 'Office Space'.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I wouldn't say any of the Clintons are dumb; in fact I do find them to be pretty smart, only psycho; which is probably worst combination one can have in a human being.

I actually think its best to leave people's personal affairs as their personal affairs. As to Jen, it seems like she makes money on having her personal life on the front of gossip magazines. It would probably be better for her if she didn't.

I don't know what Chelsea is into, but I do hope she isn't letting her parents and other people run her life. I believe she wanted to be a doctor at one time.

As for Hillary, I hope she would just retire from public life, and then I'd wish her my best. She can find solace in a beautiful grandkid that she will undoubtably soon have, and rest on her laurels on what she once was and what she could have been; and she can let what she became serve as a warning to others who are considering the path of whoring to the 1% as she did chose to do.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

If she thinks Chelsea will seek a career in politics that could have an effect on her decision to run or not. Who knows. It would be to Chelsea's advantage if her mother didn't run. I know one thing, the next prez will be a run of the mill corporate wanker whether it's Hillary, Romney or whoever. That's a sure bet.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Gossip can be useful. Is Chelsea planning a career in politics? Inquiring minds might want to know.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

I believe she will choose politics. Especially if her mom loses 2016 but I wouldn't count on that. I think she's more articulate and honest than either of her parents.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

This isn't your thread. I think our conversation is over.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Fresh1 (7) 5 months ago

She will win. She is the next Prez. Count on it.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

You bet. She's the next prez. Her supporters have to pretend like it will be an actual race. Stinkle in 3....2.....1......

The fix is in.

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

That pretty much sums it up.

Corporate interests abound.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Maybe they'll run Romney again in 2016. That will be good for a laugh.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

If the war whore wins the Democratic primary, the Republicans can put up Rand Paul, and he'll probably win the Presidency. Scary thought huh.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

?? Doubt that. Paul, seriously? No telling what the pubs have planned. I'm sure they're waiting to see what Hill does. I wish they would pull their heads from their butts and run Murkowski. They won't though. She said Palin lacked an 'intellectual curiosity' and they hate that kind of talk. What if they run Ryan? That would suck. Something is wrong with him. He's a ladies man which makes it even more disturbing.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

What the hell is that thing on his head? Looks alive.

[-] 0 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Maybe the Republicans will run Sarah Palin. Then Palin can use that Crosshairs thing she had going a while back to get rid of Hillary. Only problem with that is then we'll be stuck with Palin.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

It will be interesting to see how Hill handles the new cold war if she gets elected. Wonder if she'll return the furniture she stole when she left the WH the first time. These royals, gotta love em'.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I'm sure Hillary will make it piping hot. With all the bombs she'll be droppin' around the world, Rootin' Tootin' Janet Reno will look like a choir girl.

She's not gonna be dropping them wimpy drones like Obama, she's going to be doing ICBMs.

[-] -2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

Hillary the Great.

[-] -2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 months ago

We have no clue what either party is preparing. You can bet the wheels are turning though. Dems are in a bind here. Biden would probably lose and he's getting up there. I think women are generally scared to challenge Hill. Not sure if people would get excited about Cory Booker. Hill might be undecided. Warren might step up if Hill steps aside. Cuomo maybe?

We'll just have to wait and see. As far as repubs, who cares.

I think the boomers really need to step aside. It's been almost 24 years. If it has to be a dem or repub I say Baldwin.

[-] 3 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

You are most correct. Not only is Hillary the war whore, but she's also an old hag. I know she still has a lot of pull and though the Democratic party promised her the selection after Obama got in the way, they have to realize she really needs to be retired, and put out on the pasture.

[-] -2 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

Unfortunately lots of so-called progressives will vote for Hitlary.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

Yes, I'm sure that Hitlary will be "every bit as bitter, angry and conniving as those radical neoconservative elements in the the Pentagon" that she calls friends.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it, and find yourself in the Air Force One afterburner.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I'm not hoping the Democrats stay home. I'm hoping the Democrats can come up with some other candidate that us real progressives can seriously vote for.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

What do you think of Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Warren would have made a very interesting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief, however Obama had to appease the crazy radical republicans who don't believe americans should be able to go mano a mano with a bank when the bank is behaving badly so Obama had to pick someone more appealing to both parties. As it stands now, the crazy republicans want to stuff the CFPB anyways.

[-] -1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I think she would make a much more viable candidate than the war whore. I hope the Democrats will think wisely when selecting their next Presidential candidate.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

I hope you are a female otherwise your comments border on misogyny.

[-] 0 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

not sure that is so bad - not much different from calling obama a murdering bastard

[-] -1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Obama is a murdering bastard.

[-] 3 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

Wow! You are gutsy but being a bastard seems to be very much a praise for being American.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

I want to state the facts but not to harm the vital interests of my "flock." I may sound confused but that is perfectly fine because my beloved "sheep" come first before my reputation. ZenDog, being a dog, you should know what the true duty of a dog guarding a flock of "sheep" is. One may even appear like a wolf and bite the ankles of some "sheep" so that can hurt.

[-] -2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Oh geez. I suppose then calling somebody a "War Whore" becomes a complement also, and all I'm doing here is helping the war whore with her election campaign....

[-] -1 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

"In America's media culture, there is no such thing as bad publicity." Bad publicity is still considered as superior to solitary confinement.

[-] 1 points by cordoba (21) from West Point, NY 5 months ago

Agreed.

[-] 0 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

sexist!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by cordoba (21) from West Point, NY 5 months ago

In case you are wondering what the translation of, "I want someone who knows who the players are....[blah, blah, blah]"..is. That means Yoo Hoo - Go Democrats, we are foolishly ready to give you yet another chance

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

Oh she understands it alright...

[-] -2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Progressives create as many problems as neo cons do because they truly believe the other side is the devil.

[-] -2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

And another person with a brain is called a libertarian on here, by one of two people...

Not for making any statements that endorse libertarian philosophy mind you. Just simply speculating what it will be like to have another Bush family president.

Anyone else seeing a trend? An agenda?

[-] -1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

You may be correct. But I also believe there are enough real progressives who know better, and will stay home come election day. If war whore Hitlary wins the Democratic primary, high likelihood will be that the Republicans will then win the White House. My hope is that the Democrats find a more reasonable candidate than the war whore.

p.s. Hitlary; good analogy. By the way did you all know Hitlary used to be a on the Board of Directors for WalMart? How much more 1% suckup can anybody get?

[-] 3 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

It may take short-term pain amongst the progressives to have long-term gain, but my slant is... by continuing to invest our energies into the Democratic Party, we are wasting our time.

"Hitlary" is shadz' analogy as far as I know, and yes it it a good one.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I certainly would not give either major party Democrats or Republicans any of my money or time. Unfortunately these days it seems like the two party system is the only game in town.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Its silly to condemn anyone because of who they know. I would suggest that Hillary Clinton was thrown under the bus in 2008 for Barack Obama specifically because she has a backbone and was not going to cowtow to wall street the way that Barack Obama has.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Na, She was thrown under the bus 'cause she was too into making war, and was too into sucking up to the 1%ers.

Obama won because he was rallying against all that. Too bad he lied. Too bad the war bitch didn't get squished by the bus tires rolling over the pavement.

[-] 3 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Hillary Clinton didn't start any war, that's men folks doing. Try again.

[-] 4 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Back in 2003 when then President Bush was mongering for war with Iraq, Frau Hillary vigorously backed him up to the shock of many of her then liberal supporters. That was when she became known as the "War Whore". Her true character was revealed of being a 100% suck up to the Neocon 1% who is out to take over the planet. Since then she emphatically promoted just about every war the U.S.A. embarked on. As Secretary of State under Obama she promoted the bombing of Libya. She promoted the attacking Syria. Recently she made inflammatory remarks about the crisis in the Ukraine in an effort to promote a full scale war there. If it was a testosterone laden Neanderthal male that was doing all that warmongering one would say that is par for the course. But for a female to engage in such activity, that is utter disgusting. By all accounts she is a warmongering psycho-bitch who belongs in a rubber room, and not in the oval office. If she becomes Prez we'll have world war III within three months of her taking office!

[-] 3 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

As long as there are enough people in power adhering to the Herr/Frau dichotomy (or double standard?), Hillary may get a break initially, getting her ways to her heart's desires without starting World War III.

Conducts unbecoming of a lady can be most effective in the testosterone-permeated power players' locker-room.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

She was representing New York where 911 occurred, I think no matter what she did she would have been damned.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

911 should have been the signal saying we need world peace; that the USA quit messing around in the Middle-East, but as it happened the politicos were out screaming for blood with the war whore among them. But the whore was howling the loudest during the debates for making war with Iraq as if 911 had anything to do with that.

I hope you're not trying to tell me New York City is filled with blood spilling loving warmongers.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Now you're being ridiculous. America should have thanked the Middle East or whomever was behind 911??? You are a middle eastern shill. probably Saudi Arabian. New York gave back to Saudi Arabia a ten million dollar donation because they gave the same lecture you are giving.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Too bad New York didn't listen.

Now we are in a lot of wars that are draining the life blood out our country as well as destroying the rest of the planet.

Maybe that is why Occupation Wall Street happened...

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Naw, Occupation Wall Street happened when a bunch of spoiled rich kids were suddenly stopped from becoming wall street big shots and they were pissed off about it.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is missing the most important ingredient needed in winning a war, empathy for others, rather than concern for themselves trumping all other causes.

Empathy defeats Tyranny, but Anger defeats Empathy, and Occupy Wall Street has way too much anger to achieve real meaningful change.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Obviously you're no fan of Occupation Wall Street.

So, which 1% wall street weenie is paying you how much to rag on this blog?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

That's why I spent several days creating www.occupynews.blogspot.com for no pay while I was curled over with some type of horrible stomach flu or pneumonia.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Interesting web page worthy of some thoughtful comment. Kudos. However, if you haven't already you ought maybe make a separate post on the OWS web site to discuss 'cause this thread here is for vulgar commentary against a certain war whore in hopes of short circuiting this war whore's political career for the purposes of saving this world from her wicked psychopathology.

[-] -3 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

lol, remember, the democrat party threw her under the bus because Obama was a bigger shill for wall street than Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary Clinton if elected back in 2008, would have reduced our budget deficit and spurred growth of renewable energy, which is the best way to remove our clutches from around the world.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Anger over not getting their turn to be rich, fat, wall street scumbags. Anger that boils over into demanding that a few go to jail even if means hundreds of thousands of homeowners unfairly lose their homes. Anger defeats Empathy, without Empathy, Tyranny wins.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Ok, so now we all know where you're coming from.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

That's a rather vague comment. I'm for creating empathy among like minded people by focusing on what is unfair, and fixing what is unfair. I believe that good ideas that invoke empathy are more readily embraced than using anger at any one section of society, even the 1%. Empathy defeats Tyranny, not direct anger at the 1% because this may surprise you, but they still have support from 40% of the population.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Zen Dog, much of the corruption is math based. It's silly to hate the players while ignoring how simple math is used to rob main street.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

It is the aura attached to math that crafty folk use that allows them to kill impunitively. Our Congress tries to duplicate the magic of the Banach-Tarski paradox in the sphere(s) of influence in the political realm through gerrymandering. Our country gets Ebola in its political/financial realms but we should remember that "it is far better to have leeches all over than being a dead corpse with no leeches." Math says that we may still reverse the Banach-Tarski paradox if we remind ourselves of the words of Lincoln at Gettysburg.

[-] 3 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

The Gerrymandering is an excellent example. There are many others. Surprised to find Zen Dog so uneducated on the use of math to destroy lives. Maybe I should call it financial math. Does that help you understand?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

Yes, I understand "financial math" as the midwife of Bush's "voodoo economics" delivering "zombie banks." Our Congressional attempts to duplicate the magic of the Banach-Tarski paradox is doomed to fail due to its dimensional dissonance so we are actually in better shape than we seem to be. Only our (non-)federal (no-)reserve has the incantation to realize the magic but it may just be a novice at that. The situation is "unprecedented" and a "comprehensive" solution is required but most so-called magicians have long ago become cerberus feed.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

More specifically, there are millions of HELOC's coming due now and through the next couple of years and all homeowners who have no mortgage, just a HELOC that is for less than the value of their home are going to lose their home because the bank won't RE-HELOC them even though there is NO RISK to the bank to do so because they are the first lien holder.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

Some lending institutions are definitely predatory so caveat emptor. It may just be inherent in our society that psychopaths and predators tend to rise up fast on the economic ladder with the aura of "financial math." Andy Warwhore's unicorn is not shy being in our face.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

If true, then the Occupy movement is bordering on being a disrupter of truth by getting its members to focus on the physical side of protesting while ignoring the mathematical side.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3085) 5 months ago

As everything is physical, the battleground is always physical but not what we traditionally mean by physical. The "hearts and minds" of our people is a physical battleground. Due to the meme transmission between people, acts of protesting can effect changes in the battleground but they have their limitations due to the protestors not being strategically located at the control knobs.

Remember though that there are always people at the control knobs whom can be reached socially, psychologically, emotionally, morally, rationally, scientifically, artistically, and most important of all, anonymously. The underlying law of the universe is: you push, it moves (or deforms, or breaks, etc.). The ultimate peaceful success comes from what happens in secret meetings, not on the streets although that can help the bargaining position for sure. I hope we do not go the non-peaceful route to get success.

[-] -2 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

you are correct in using the phrase "at best" - note the trans pacific partnership for starters - then maybe follow up with a reading of the snowden documents. next we could talk about Libya and the drone program

[-] 0 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

"at best, produced a pause in the over all course of global corporate hegemony "

A pause?! A PAUSE?! What fuckin planet are these people on?

8 nations bombed in the last 5 years, labor rates at 30 year lows, Monsanto running the FDA, Wall St at record highs....RECORD FUCKIN HIGHS...

Interest rates pegged at 0 and banks stealing 85 billion a month with no end game strategy.

BP polluting the gulf with politicians (like our current head one) still gobbling up their money.

And lets not forget the main one, for a site like this:

SHUTTING OCCUPY DOWN

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Thanks. I was going to reply to confused ol' Zen Dog saying all that, but you said it for me.

May I add to your list that rip off Obamacare that short sized a lot of people's health care plans like mine.

[-] 0 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

wow - your comment has not been REMOVED - what happened to the stinkleshooz? sleeping? - glad I saw it before it is removed and both of us are - you know - gagged somehow. read naders comments before our great president was coronated. during he primaries he wrote that he was a corporate hack - how true.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by JGriff99mph (507) 5 months ago

Anyone accepting that much money from Wall St and Big Oil should be recognized as a sell out.

I was oblivious to that correlation at the time of the 08 campaign, having just witnessed a total meltdown of the country and our new "war on terrorism".

With the first act of this brand new way, hope and change, time for change, etc etc etc being to EXTEND THE BUSH CUTS I realized at that point either I was played or these freaks are incapable of leadership.

At this point Im leaning towards a combo of the two. I think they know they need to promise us stuff to keep us believing, and at the end of the day they have very little respect for us so they do what they must to keep their jobs.

With our constant inability to lead ourselves, constantly pandering to politicians to save us, sometimes I wonder "who can blame em?"

[-] 1 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

wow - again I say - this was not REMOVED! your comment about the brand new way brought this quote to mind (from Chomsky) "Of course Obama is nothing but a brand and a bad one at that." while looking for it I came across this and thought I would send it along to you. again this is from Chomsky - it seems great minds think alike (that would be you and noam!) - "The response to the election was interesting and instructive. It kept pretty much to the soaring rhetoric, to borrow the cliché, that was the major theme of the election. The election was described as an extraordinary display of democracy, a miracle that could only happen in America, and on and on. Much more extreme in Europe even than here. There’s some accuracy in that, if we keep to the West. So if we keep to the West, yes, it’s probably true that it couldn’t have happened anywhere else. Europe is much more racist than the United States, and you wouldn’t expect anything like that to happen. On the other hand, if we look at the world, it’s not that remarkable.

So, let’s take, say, the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere: Haiti and Bolivia. In Haiti, there was an election in 1990, which really was an extraordinary display of democracy, much more so than this. In Haiti, there were grassroots movements, popular movements that developed in the slums and in the hills, which nobody was paying any attention to. And they managed, even without any resources, to sweep into power their own candidate, a populist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That’s a victory for democracy, when popular movements can organize and set programs and pick their candidate and put him into office, which is not what happened here, of course. I mean, Obama did organize a great large number of people and many enthusiastic people, what’s called in the press “Obama’s Army.” But the army is supposed to take instructions, not to implement, to introduce, develop programs and call on its own candidate to implement them. That’s critical. If the army keeps to that condition, nothing much will change. If it, on the other hand, goes the way activists did in the ’60s, a lot could change, one of the choices that has to be made. However — so that’s Haiti. Of course, that didn’t last very long. A couple of months later, there was military coup, a period of terror. I won’t go through the whole record, but up to the present, the traditional torturers of Haiti — France and the United States — have made sure that there won’t be a victory for democracy there. It’s a miserable story, contrary to many illusions.

Take the second poorest country, Bolivia. They had an election in 2005 that’s almost unimaginable in the West, certainly here, anywhere. The person elected into office was indigenous. That’s the most oppressed population in the hemisphere, that is, those who survived. He’s a poor peasant. How did he get in? Well, he got in because there were, again, mass popular movements, which elected their own representative. And they are the source of the programs, which are serious ones. There are real issues, and people know them: control over resources, cultural rights, social justice, and so on. Furthermore, the election was just an event that was a particular stage in a long continuing struggle, a lot before and a lot after. There was day when people pushed the levers, but that’s just an event in ongoing popular struggles, very serious ones. A couple of years ago, there was a major struggle over privatization of water, an effort which would in effect deprive a good part of the population of water to drink. And it was a bitter struggle. A lot of people were killed. But they won it, through international solidarity, in fact, which helped. And it continues. Now that’s a real election. Again, the plans, the programs are being developed, acted on constantly by mass popular movements, which then select their own representative from their own ranks to carry out their programs. And that’s quite different from what happened here.

Actually, what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry, which runs elections here — quadrennial extravaganzas essentially — makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities, character, and so on and so forth. They do that for good reasons. They know — they look at public opinion studies, and they know perfectly well that on a host of major issues both parties are well to the right of the population. That’s one good reason to keep issues off the table. And they recognize the success. So, every year, the advertising industry gives a prize, you know, to the best marketing campaign of the year. This year, Obama won the prize, beat out Apple Company, the best marketing campaign of 2008, which is correct. You know, it’s essentially what happened.

Now, that’s quite different from what happens in a functioning democracy like, say, Bolivia or Haiti, except for the fact that it was crushed. And in the South, it’s not all that uncommon. Notice that each of these cases, there’s a much more extraordinary display of democracy in action than what we’ve seen, important as it was here. And so, the rhetoric, especially in Europe, is correct if we maintain our own narrow racist perspectives and say, yeah, what happens in the South didn’t happen or doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is what we do, and, by our standards, it was extraordinary, a miracle, but not by the standards of a functioning democracy.

In fact, there is a distinction in democratic theory, which does separate, say, the United States from Bolivia or Haiti. The question is, what is a democracy supposed to be? That’s actually a debate that goes back to the Constitutional Convention. But in recent years and the twentieth century, it’s been pretty well articulated by important figures. So at the liberal end, progressive end, the leading public intellectual of the twentieth century was Walter Lippmann, a Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy progressive. And a lot of his work was on a democratic theory, and he was pretty frank about it. He took a position not all that different from James Madison’s. He said that in a democracy, the population has a function. Its function is to be spectators, not participants. He didn’t call it the population. He called it the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The ignorant and meddlesome outsiders have a function, namely to watch what’s going on and to push a lever every once in a while, then go home. But the participants are us, us privileged, smart guys. Well, that’s one conception of democracy. And, yeah, that’s — essentially we’ve seen an episode of it.

The population very often doesn’t accept this. As I mentioned, in just very recent polls, people overwhelmingly oppose it. But they’re atomized, separated. Many of them feel hopeless, unorganized, and don’t feel they can do anything about it. So they dislike it, you know, but that’s where it ends. In a functioning democracy, like, say, Bolivia or the United States in earlier stages, they did something about it. That’s why we have the New Deal measures, the Great Society measures. In fact, any — just about any step — you know, women’s rights, end of slavery, go back as far as you like — it doesn’t happen as a gift. And it’s not going to happen in the future.

The commentators are pretty well aware of this, although they’re not going to — they don’t put it the way I’m going to. But if you read the press, it does come out. So, take our local newspaper at the liberal end of the spectrum, the Boston Globe

. You probably saw right after the election a front-page story. The lead front-page story was on how Obama developed this wonderful grassroots army, but he doesn’t have any debts, which is supposed to be a good thing. So he’s free to do what he likes, because he has no debts. The normal Democratic constituencies — labor, women, minorities and so on — they didn’t bring him into office. So he owes them nothing.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

Look. I'm trying to do you a favor. I'm well aware of the Repelican plan, and I don't like it any more than you. But I'm also aware of the Clinton plan that is a sell out of the American People. And other people are aware of the Clinton Plan too. So, if that Walmart Witch wins the Democratic Primary, she is not going to win the Presidency. Enough hardcore lefties and progressives are just not going to vote for her. The only chance the Democrats got is if they can come up with another more realistic candidate. The real election is in the Democratic Primary. If somebody sensible doesn't win and the war whore get the nomination then, the Democrats and the American People will loose big time in November.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by bullfrogma (448) 5 months ago

That reminds me of Obama's election. All the other candidates went on comedy talk shows, except for Obama. It created an impression that he was the only one who would take things seriously. Of course he won. I think they designed it that way.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Obama went everywhere that Mary went.

[-] -1 points by Shule (1976) 5 months ago

I think your correct. Reality is that U.S. Presidents don't get elected; they get selected.

[-] -2 points by bullfrogma (448) 5 months ago

Whatever big money wants, it gets. And we have absolutely no way to know who's really on board with that.

The republicans just don't have to hide it. They're allowed to be bad cops, so they can get away with doing things that look greedy in the eyes of the nation and it's taken for granted.

If corruption is really so one-sided, than why has there been no political outcry of no confidence, or anything like that?

[-] -2 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

in some ways the Clintons and Obama are worse than the republicans because they get "liberals" and progressives (ok, I agree - so called) to vote for them and then defend them or at the very least keep quiet about their crimes - Clintons crimes were horrific with nafta being just the beginning. 500,000 dead kids in Iraq and so on. Obama has plenty to answer for - I am sure you can fill in the rest

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

How did you get from Clinton to 500,000 dead in Iraq?

[-] -2 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

the sanctions - google madeline Albright on 60 minutes where she says - 500,000 dead Iraqi children - yes it s a price we re willing to pay! how can you knot know this - not you really but how as a society can we not know this? the gremans know they killed 6 million jews. they see it every other week in a Hollywood movie

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

If you agree that there are three very intense religious groups in Iraq that don't like each other, than it isn't fair to blame outsiders for results that probably would not be far different without outside intervention. To keep the peace, the young are used by their elders including the belief that anal sex is not considered sex.

[-] 3 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

that is your answer to this -

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96).................do you have any idea of the history of Iraq before we invaded - doesn't sound like it. what are you doing here - what has happened to ows - shame

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

yes, the women are treated like respected property, and SOME of the kids are used by elders in sexual ways that they are in denial about, anal sex being high up on the list.

Do I agree with the comment you are quoting from, of course not. She is a complete idiot. The correct response is , No, we are in a no win situation in large part created by our dependence on their oil."

Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein's two sons were radically more evil than Hussein, they were complete narcissists with no boundaries when it came to who or what they thought they owned. They felt everything in the country was theirs, and these two dangers goofs were going to be running things for the next 40 years.

[-] 0 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

you seem to be saying that because -we are in a no win situation in large part created by our dependence on their oil." - then 500,000 children shitting themselves to death is a "price we are willing to pay" - notice the use of the phrase - we are willing to pay - we who? so youwith agree with both bush presidents that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. because of our dependence on their oil. or because saddams sons were crazy and there was pedophilia. how soon should we bomb the Vatican? you really need to back off this line of reasoning - it will not stand up - were alive during gulf wars 1 and 2- do you remember the lies?? babies in incubators and mushroom clouds. so yes or no - bush 1 - war - Clinton - murderous sanctions and then bush 2 war - agree or disagree?

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

What price are you willing to put on having two sons rule Iraq for the next 50 years who apparently were fearless sociopaths?

[-] 0 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

not sure what price iraqis are willing to pay but is up to them - no? i think the gop right is pretty horrific but i do not want another country bombing us because of that.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Your comment is solid except for one thing, there is no voting in Iraq so the sons would have been in power for the next 50 years which might have given the U.S. and Israel way more excuses for war than not having them around.

[-] 1 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

seems you are unaware of world history - like in Egypt recently or America 1776 - voting? who said anything about voting. pretty sick it to justify the deaths of 500,000 children because saddams sons were evil- and what does Israel have to do with this conversation. Israel does not need an excuse - they bomb at will like we do. the only difference is that they bomb and kill in their neighborhood and we bomb the world

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Didn't Egyptian citizens overthrow their government because they were sick of not being able to vote?

[-] 0 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

you need to read the papers more. Iraq was not the long term cause or the trigger. you seem to think the invasion of Iraq (both of them?) was a good thing - is that correct - I know I know - saddam's sons and all of that but did we do the right thing in invading and destroying that country

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

No, I was not for the invasion of Iraq. I had proposed that the U.S. military budget be cut in half and the other half be used to accelerate the develop of efficient and affordable solar and wind energy.

I do think that other middle eastern countries, seeing mild change in Iraq, and with the advent of social media. wanted change as well.

Many Middle Eastern countries have very young demographics and social media and the recent past gave them hope for change to a more representative government.

[-] -1 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

so first you say this - there is no voting in Iraq so the sons would have been in power for the next 50 - then you say this - Didn't Egyptian citizens overthrow their government because they were sick of not being able to vote? - I think you just made my point - the one when I said this - not sure what price iraqis are willing to pay but is up to them - no?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (638) 5 months ago

Not at all. The reason Egypt rose up is specifically because of what happened in Iraq.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

the usual well thought out response to murder and torture - typical of mainstream democratic party politics

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

Anyone who possesses an average amount of intelligence, and who is a caring human being knows the Republicans are a self-serving, mean-spirited bunch.

The Democrats though are far more insidious, and they play their part of advancing neoliberalism very well....and we only have to look at where we are, and the day to day debates on here to see that.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 5 months ago

Tell me about the pug court that just voted for a corporate government. ARe they insidious? Want fair pay for teachers? The Kochs do not and successfully put their own dirtbag in government. How about a lift in an already sad minimum wage outdone by all other industrious countries? Give anyone a leg up? Not them. Who's insidious? What is neoliberalism exactly? Some fucked up term Chumpsky came up with? The republicans trash the environment, steal money from education, put cronyism in the dictionary, destroyed and murdered millions, installed dictatorships. They no longer recognize their own lies. Most of them are from the South cut from the same cloth that attacked their own people and wanted to keep their slaves forever, even after surrendering. If you think the dems are more insidious the.....You know what? Fuck this. You can't be helped.. It's not even worth it. You know who started the CIA right??? Who helped build the atomic bomb. Heil Hitler!!!

[-] 1 points by cordoba (21) from West Point, NY 5 months ago

Democrats - "insidious" - stealthily treacherous in a seemingly harmless way.

Republicans - blatantly treacherous in a way that is very harmful to the 99%.

Can I deduce from your red-baiting like comment that anyone who is not a partisan Democrat is a Nazi....and of course a liar and a libeRtarian too? lololol

You're f-a-r out man! ..."Heil ...[OBOMBER]!!"

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 5 months ago

No, i just saw the movie 'Insidious' and made me think of how vile and nasty the radical right wing is. Feel free to take shots at obomber, just throw some the right wings way as well, unless you were dead asleep 2001-2009, you may at least try to be an equal opportunity offender. ( I'm a ufo hunter too, it's just much easier to spot the Nazis)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

ouch!

[-] 0 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

"ouch!"...which reminds me, we need a President who is willing to FIGHT for single-payer health-care, not one who is complicit in bringing welfare to the insurance companies.

Compare this poor excuse for a President to FDR. I took a picture of these words which were on the wall of the Roosevelt House in NYC. What a neat place this is...now run by Hunter College. It's so steeped in history...

HEALTH

"In the middle of the Great Depression, many Americans did not have enough to eat, and many did not have access to health-care. Infant mortality was shockingly high especially among the poor. Only about one-third of all children living in rural areas received immunizations. In some cities, school teachers, many of whom had not received paychecks for weeks used their own money to feed hungry pupils.

The chief medical officer of the Farm Security Administration (FSA) pointed out that ill-health accounted for fifty percent of those who defaulted on various government loans; he championed government-sponsored health-clinics for farm and migrant families, noting that, "a family in good heath is a better credit risk than a family in bad health." The FSA medical program pioneered managed-care and was, according to The Saturday Evening Post at the time, "a giganitc rehearsal for health insurance."

At the same time, an early New Deal initiative, the Child Health and Recovery Program, provided emergency food and medical care to six million families on relief, and in 1935, The works Progress Administration (WPA) launched a massive health initiative, underwriting millions of home visits by doctors and nurses and housekeeping aides. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided for prenatal and child health clinics, medical examinations for school children, dental care, jobs for public health workers and services for children with special needs. Government programs focused on preventive care and education as well as treatment.

The WPA also pioneered federally-funded school lunches, a benefit that is, today, still crucial to the well-being of millions of American students. In the 1930s the governemnt served almost 900 million hot lunches under this program: in New York City, more than 100,000 children were served lunch each day by several thousand WPA workers. A number of states reported increased attendance after the lunch program was launched. In farming areas of the country, the government's "rural rehabilitation" program gave families supplies to produce their own food.

Through these government programs, millions of Americans received their first regular medical care and their first experience of of food security. Not until the mid-1960s would medical and other federal programs again provide such services for low-income families."

Remember, all this was done in the midst of the Great Depression.

[-] -1 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

you're the man!

[-] 2 points by cicero33 (12) from Sands Point, NY 5 months ago

Me the "man"??...hardly, my name isn't Roosevelt, and although I'm sure he was far from being perfect, he is light years better than what we have today.

Imagine the history here at 47-49 East 65th St. It was Roosevelt's NYC home from 1921-1933....where he asked Frances Perkins (considered the woman behind the New Deal) to be his Secretary of Labor....where when returning to NYC as President...where he gave his fireside chats...it was where Rose Scheiderman (a socialist) was a frequent guest of the Roosevelts...and a whole bunch more.

And I can't say enough about the Roosevelt House which is now part of Hunter College and the mostly young people who run it. It's just a marvelous venue to hear like-minded people with progressive values speak. Add to that some great conversation with kindred spirits at the reception, and some super hors d' oeuvre with some wine or Pellegrino water to wash 'em down.

I was most impressed at having attended my first symposium there in late March which was about workplace safety and unions. A friend and I are on the waiting last to see Matt Taibbi give a presentation on April 30th.

http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/programs/

[-] 2 points by flip (6786) 5 months ago

ok, fdr is the man - do you know the line "I welcome their hatred" - we need someone who in power who will say that today!