In my lifetime, I have watched, helplessly, as the Republican party's unenlightened politics have taken apart my country's civilization. Under Republican administrations the effects of Watergate, War (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again), deregulation (the abdication of the rule of law over corporations, industry and the market), federal irresponsibility (Neo-cons are PROUD of the idea that Government should do nothing, unless it involves a self-gratifying application of suffering and violence to the "evildoers") incompetence, mediocrity and an undefined but systematic anti-intellectualism have created an environment where distrust, violence, corporate lawlessness are common. It is an environment that disrespects idealism, faith in one's civilization, and virtually everything that cannot be marketed. It degrades all life, human and otherwise, for the sake of political and economic avarice. To be fair, I realize there are also reasons to be justly critical of the Democrats, but lenient sexuality and a reluctant approach to militancy are not inherent in the Democratic Party's political philosophy, nor are they, in any way, as destructive as any of the Republicans' political philosophies. Because of all this, I cannot vote Republican. It would be a contemptuous violation of my conscience and my consciousness. After eight years of Bush's inarticulate ignorance and destructive policies, I think the ability to express complex thought through one's native language should be a basic requirement, one that the confused statements of John McCain fail to meet. I don't know what Barack Obama's Presidency will prove to be. But he expresses through his speech a depth and clarity of thought that I find impressive, and yes, inspiring. If he brings even a portion of that to his Presidency, then he will be among the best we've had. At the very least, he asks people to consider the idea that the world can be better than we think, instead of Bush/Cheney/McCain's worse-than-we-think. That has to count for something, like, my vote, at least. What do you think? Peace and Love
i think obama is a neocon just the same as bush, i believe if he and biden are elected not only will they bankrupt this country with obamas plans to give nearly 900 billion to the united nations on top of all the other programs he is proposing with no other way to fund them but borrow it,they will invade pakistan in the name of "securing its nukes".
Most of what you described can just as well apply to the Democrats. This is, after all, a one party dictatorship masked as a two party "democracy." It doesn't matter who gets into office because both candidates have been hand-selected by the establishment to work for the elites in control of that system (not the people). Both candidates represent the same big money and corporate interests, and are backed by the old monied families like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. So they are both dangerous, but at least people know what they're getting with McCain. Obama has his lemming-like followers completely hoodwinked with his empty rhetoric about "change." Most people like to buy into this nonsense as if it's genuine, thinking they're part of something bigger than themselves, when really it's just a PR creation by professional speechwrites who know what people want to hear, regardless of how bogus it is. The cult of personality surrounding Obama isn't much different than the cult of personalities that have centered around dictators throughout history. It's all about getting the people into an emotional and reactionary state, where they are no longer thinking for themselves (if they could even think for themselves to begin with) and begin parroting empty slogans in which they have no idea what they really mean. It's typical mass-psychology at play here. I see no "change" under an Obama presidency (or a McCain presidency). Things will only continue on the same path they are now, which entails more loss of freedoms, sovereignty, and more wars. To be honest with you, presidents are merely figureheads. They decide nothing. They are merely put into power to give the illusion that they're running the show when nothing could be further from the truth. These people -- Democrat or Republican -- are all reading from the same script and are put into power to administer an agenda that never really changes.
does it really matter who "we would like"? no one that would win,it doesnt work that way in america anymore.. but just for shits and giggles, why not rex tillerson,for president with hugh grant as VP? they pretty much control the country and most of the world already.. at least with them people like you would know they were fucked.. i already know....
No. Democrats have their faults (Kennedy is actually responsible for sending the first handful of American troops into Vietnam). But these specific events (Watergate, Iraq I and II, deregulation, the apathetic response to Hurricane Katrina, etc.) are historically verifiable acts of Republican administrations. This is a conspiracy theory. A simplistic, fantastic story based on erroneous, incomprehensible logic, a story that cannot be verified true or false and must therefore be taken on faith. A story that gives the "believer" an empowering delusion that his esoteric knowledge is a reflection of his superior quality of mind, grace, talent, intelligence, character, etc. If that's all you've got, then, I am sorry, but you are simply not conscious of a truly transcendent reality. This is not necessarily a permanent condition, however. This is good news. There is no evidence that any conspiracy theory is true. The amount of energy and cooperation it would take to keep this kind of organization in existence, in power and in hiding is far greater than they, theoretically, have. It requires more power than ANYONE has. The danger, of course, is that if enough people believe in a conspiracy theory, it actually does take on its own twisted existence in the form of delusional influence over the "believers'" thoughts, cognative bias, actions and voting preferences. Karl Rove used this to Duhbya's advantage by identifying his candidate as an exemplary paragon of Christianity. An actual Enlightened Christian, of course, would know his ideals are absolutely antithetical to those who start wars. Please try to base your beliefs on YOUR actual experience, on what you can actually know to be true. Find out what truly is beyond your experience. Or, accept the fact that the manipulations of your unfounded belief makes you as much a pawn as anyone. Peace and Love
For what its worth, I would love to see Arlo Guthrie, Charlie Rose, Jon Stewart, Tom Robbins or Bill Moyers elected to the presidency. Peace and Love
So it's a conspiracy theory that Obama and McCain are both funded by the transnational corporations? I guess they're simply grassroots guys with no ties to big business, who simply are running for office because they love America? Enough with the pseudo-intellectual diatribe already. Nobody is impressed. The statement that there is no evidence that any conspiracy theory is true is the height of koolaid drinking. How many people are charged and convicted of conspiracy each year?
No, but that isn't what you said. You claim there is "a one party dictatorship masked as a two party 'democracy.'" Probably not, what are the chances for simple "grassroots guys?" As far as the with "no ties to big business" part, Obama has raised millions through internet donations. Are internet donations "Big Business?" As for McCain . . . ? I am not voting for McCain for many other reasons besides any big business ties he may have. I can't say with absolute certainty that I know why they're running for office, and I imagine you can't either. Who knows? I do know that the first cynical answer you imagine is not necessarily true. You probably wouldn't even recognize, much less be impressed by, anything that didn't conform to your expectations. Until you know what all possibilities are, consider the fact that the first cynical answer you imagine is not necessarily true. You should learn to do without personal attacks. They are unfair, ineffective, unconvincing and they can be used against you. Sigh . . . A conspiracy occurs when two or more people plot, in secrecy, to commit a harmful act. A conspiracy theory is the (necessarily counterfactual) assumption that a harmful act can only be the result of a secret conspiracy. The 9/11 attacks began as a conspiracy. The unfounded belief that Bush/Cheney were part of that conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. I can't stand Bush/Cheney, but I don't believe their particular breed of evil is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they ask you to accept, on faith, without reason or question, the worst available answer as truth. It creates and develops an irrational, intellect-destroying habit so that, eventually, whatever horrors this faith hands you, you accept. Of course, conspiracies do happen. People are charged and convicted of conspiracy each year. It doesn't mean that everything outside of your understanding is evidence of a conspiracy. A REAL intellectual recognizes and appreciates the essential relationship --the similarities, the differences and the connections -- between any two ideas. Peace and Love
voting is a waste of time. you are brainwashed into thinking it will make a difference. the elections are rigged. you are not in control. have a lovely day
obamas "big business" donations during the primaries,this was as of mid febuary, Barack Obama: Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250 McCain,primaries,mid febuary, John McCain: Merrill Lynch $155,950 Citigroup Inc $153,362 Blank Rome LLP $141,401 Greenberg Traurig LLP $130,587 Goldman Sachs $85,252 Univision Communications $82,000 IDT Corp $79,250 Bank of New York Mellon $74,000 Bridgewater Assoc $72,100 MGM Mirage $70,400 Irvine Co Apartment Community $66,100 JP Morgan Chase & Co $65,485 Credit Suisse Group $65,000 Pinnacle West Capital $64,000 Lehman Brothers $63,450 Wachovia Corp $58,675 Cisco Systems $56,650 Morgan Stanley $55,701 Blackstone Group $47,950 MacAndrews & Forbes $45,000 http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-doesnt-take-from-special.html looks to me as if Obama received far more from "big business" than mccain did up until that point,my guess is nothing has changed.. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/ behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show. Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said. In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. and look what these corporate bundlers get in return from obama http://www.thenextright.com/davidb11171/change-you-can-earmark Obama funnels federal money to top campaign contributors Although earmarking large sums of money to top supporters and fundraisers is a popular practice in both houses of Congress, not many people would expect such questionable activity from a shining star of liberalism and reform like Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Sadly, he is following a pattern of conspicuous allocations of federal funds. Just as he handed a million dollar earmark to his wife’s employers in 2006 (immediately after which her pay shot up from $121,910 a year to $316,962), Sen. Obama is now drastically increasing earmarks that go to his biggest supporters. In 2006, Sen. Obama requested an earmark $300,000 to replace and update the projector system at the Adler Planetarium. In 2008, he requested $3,000,000 for replacement of the projector system and other equipment in the Sky Theater. For reference, this is three times the amount he earmarked for the HIV/AIDS Policy and Research Institute at Chicago State University. While the Adler Planetarium earmarks look normal on the surface, there is a catch. The Chairman and two of the Vice Chairman of the Adler Planetarium Board of Trustees raised a total of almost $250,000 for Sen. Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign. The Adler Planetarium was probably pleasantly surprised when they found that their earmark increased by $2.7 million dollars, in other words, by a factor of ten. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Frank Clark, stands out amongst Obama supporters. On Sen. Obama’s website, Mr. Clark is listed as a bundler who raised in excess of $200,000 for the Senator’s Presidential campaign. In 2004, Mr. Clark donated $5,000 to the then State Senator Obama’s U.S. Senate bid. In 2005, Mr. Clark became the Chairman of the Board at Adler Planetarium, and in 2006 Sen. Obama earmarked $300,000 to the Planetarium. Then, in the same year that Mr. Clark’s involvement in the Obama campaign skyrocketed to raising an excess of $200,000, Sen. Obama’s earmark for the Adler Planetarium increased tenfold to $3,000,000. Mr. Clark isn’t the only problematic donor. Two of the Vice Chairmen of the Board, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson are also significant donors. Between donations from Mr. Thompson and the Cressey household, Sen. Obama received $13,800. The most significant donor here is Mr. Cressey. As a first time donor, Mr. Cressey gave the maximum possible individual donation in essentially one big check. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. Obama before 2008, the year in which the Adler Planetarium’s earmark increased tenfold. The fact that three ranking members of the Adler Planetarium’s Board donated huge sums of money (at least $200,000) is interesting by itself. The fact that these enormous contributions came in the same year that Sen. Obama increased their earmark by 900% is truly unsettling. Written by David and Daniel Byler
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html Obama's Oil Spill March 31, 2008 Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick. Summary In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies." Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race. We find the statement misleading: Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907. Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount. Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/lobbyists_pay_for_democratic_p.html Corporations pay for Democratic Party of Illinois Obama reception By Lynn Sweet on August 25, 2008 4:17 AM DENVER---Democratic Party of Illinois Chairman Michael J. Madigan is hosting a Coors Field reception Wednesday honoring Barack Obama bankrolled by corporations with interests often before the Illinois General Assembly. Madigan is also the powerful Illinois House Speaker. While Obama's campaign does not accept contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees--and Obama bemoans on the campaign trail the influence corporations have over Congress-- the Democratic convention here which will hand Obama the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by a variety of corporate sponsors. The sponsors listed on the Madigan invitation specifically for Obama are State Farm Insurance; Pepsi; ComEd; Novartis and Midwest Generation. Gov. Blagojevich's reception for Illinois Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth is underwritten by MillerCoors. AT&T is a major sponsor of delegation and overall convention activities--throwing a reception for Illinois delegates Monday--and its logo is on the souvenir bags handed out to the convention press.
current or former lobbyists working on obamas campaign. http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2007/12/chart.pdf SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-ILL.) LOBBYIST EMPLOYER REGISTERED FORM OF PAYMENT Teal Baker Podesta Group 2007 Salary Emmett Beliveau Patton Boggs 2007 Salary Ertharin Cousin Polk Street Group 2006 Salary Stephen Geer Center for American Progress 2006 Salary Steven Hildebrand Hildebrand Tewes Consulting 2006 Salary Brandon Hurlbut B&D Consulting 2007 Salary Michael Lake National Foreign Trade Council 2005 Travel, lodging payment Hans Riemer Save Our Security Coalition 1996 Salary Buffy Wicks United Food & Commercial Workers 2006 Salary International Union
The meaning of my initial post was - I will not vote for a Republican. I don't know why anyone does. It seems they continuously to reinforce the truly unenlightened impression I have of them. Maybe Obama deals with big business. I don't know if there only one way to do so, or if it's always right or wrong. I think you can no more ignore the corporations if you're running for president than you can ignore the small businesses if you're running for mayor (or the street gangs if you're the Chief of Police). I know Obama is a politician, but I like his words. If he does any of the things he says he'll do, he will be far better than anything McCain, the Bush(s), Reagan, Ford or Nixon ever imagined. We'll see . . . Peace and Love
His words are not His words. They are written by people paid to write things that YOU PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR. It's so disgusting. especially when people can't see through that.
What do YOU want him to say? What would people see if they saw through it? Have YOU seen it? I don't know if you're right or wrong or if there is a whole other way to look at all of this. I am curious about what you really believe is ultimately going on here. What your understanding of things actually is, what it means, why you believe it. What do you want this world of ours to be? What ideal is violated by those things you dislike and distrust? Peace and Love
I am truly sorry to see anyone's understanding enslaved by such ruthless cynicism. I realize it is difficult to find the good in this decade's conditions. Ever since the Bush Cheney Neo-Conservative cult took over the 2000 election, ever since Kyoto, 9/11, Iraq and the destruction of New Orleans, I have been wrestling with hopelessness. But you all seem to have surrendered to dispirited bleakness. You faithfully accept, as unquestionably true, the first cynical answer you imagine. Man, stand up. Put your consciousness, your heart and mind, to something good. Something the willfully ignorant, the aggressively unenlightened, the self-deluding Neo-Conservatives cannot even conceive of, let alone destroy. Or accept that, in form, if not in content, the way they think ("Government is bullshit," "Idealism doesn't work," "'Good' doesn't pay," "Humanity is naive") is the game you are losing. Peace and Love
obama IS a neoconservative shrouded in a veil of "hope" and "change".. if hes elected,youll see that when they invade pakistan...
