Who's Paying For the Party Conventions?

[wkmac]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/22/whos_paying_for_the_conventions_corporate

If you are a democrat who thinks your party is not like the "Party of Big Business" ie republicans, then I want to warn you not to read this article.


OT: (This topic anyway)

Jones,

Right after the above discussion, our hero Glenn Greenwald is held over to discuss with Cass Sunstein, Obama advisor, about Obama's "Change of heart" on the FISA issue. Looking at the money and influence that went down for Denver from the Telecom interests, one has to wonder what the $ figure was on Obama's "Change of heart?" For a new comer to Washington Politics, he's becoming a real pro way to fast!


http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/22/obama_adviser_cass_sunstein_debates_glenn

I read this and the words of Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch concerning Obama just kept replaying over and over.

His career in the Illinois legislature and then the U.S. senate have not produced charges of direct corruption, though he has been a dutiful serf to large corporate interests

I know you and a few other "open minded" types here are not gonna walk out to the dark side with me and anarcho-libertarian thought but you guys have to be getting serious about jettisoning the democrat party and taking a serious look at someone like Nader. Come on D, the water really is nice out here beyond the 2 parties.

 

[diesel96]

As far as " the Democrats are not the party of big business", one just has to revert back to 8 to 16 yrs ago during the Clinton years. You see, Republicans are experts into planting seeds of mythology in unsuspected thick skulls. One might recall Wall Street not to unhappy with the Clinton years. It's not all about tax breaks, and de-regulation.

That decision by Obama, which was widely seen by political strategists as an attempt to move to the ideological center, represented his first major break with the liberal left, a group that sustained him financially and organizationally throughout the primary season.

Despite the compromising nature of the bill, the safeguards, and the "fisa court" there is a lot Barack Obama can do to right the wrongs of the Bush administration when it comes to our Fourth Amendment rights.

After saying all that, I'm still very unhappy and opposed with the passing of this bill. Do I throw in the towel?....Not yet... I still take into account the overall picture and scheme of things on a multitude of issues.

I understand your position as far as what is the alternative when you have both sides of the isle marching in lock step with the fascist agenda? I would suggest a third party for the future, but now that all communications can be legally monitored, the chances of one being organized are unlikely. Same goes for protests and all other activities and organizations that seek to influence government policy and affect public opinion. For now there's no real viable option except for the lesser of two evils.

 

[1989]

As far as " the Democrats are not the party of big business", one just has to revert back to 8 to 16 yrs ago during the Clinton years. You see, Republicans are experts into planting seeds of mythology in unsuspected thick skulls. One might recall Wall Street not to unhappy with the Clinton years. It's not all about tax breaks, and de-regulation.

Wall street calls them the Greenspan years 1987-2006 appointed by Reagan

 

[wkmac]

As far as " the Democrats are not the party of big business", one just has to revert back to 8 to 16 yrs ago during the Clinton years. You see, Republicans are experts into planting seeds of mythology in unsuspected thick skulls. One might recall Wall Street not to unhappy with the Clinton years. It's not all about tax breaks, and de-regulation.

That decision by Obama, which was widely seen by political strategists as an attempt to move to the ideological center, represented his first major break with the liberal left, a group that sustained him financially and organizationally throughout the primary season.

Despite the compromising nature of the bill, the safeguards, and the "fisa court" there is a lot Barack Obama can do to right the wrongs of the Bush administration when it comes to our Fourth Amendment rights.

After saying all that, I'm still very unhappy and opposed with the passing of this bill. Do I throw in the towel?....Not yet... I still take into account the overall picture and scheme of things on a multitude of issues.

I understand your position as far as what is the alternative when you have both sides of the isle marching in lock step with the fascist agenda? I would suggest a third party for the future, but now that all communications can be legally monitored, the chances of one being organized are unlikely. Same goes for protests and all other activities and organizations that seek to influence government policy and affect public opinion. For now there's no real viable option except for the lesser of two evils.

Hey, I might not agree but I can understand and I would not wanna be in your shoes when you enter that ballot box on the first Tuesday in November. I'm just afraid by then it'll be a tough vote to make and not run towards someone like Nader. On principle from your perspective, he's IMO the perfect fit. But hey, I'm the cynic anti-gov't, anarchist so what do I know!
@ me!

Couple of good pieces (well from my perspective they are) on Obama and the myth that he is anti-war.

The first from the British press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/22/barackobama.uselections20081

The 2nd is from my favorite openly "GAY" anarcho-libertarian Justin Raimondo from Anti-War.com
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183

BTW: Just to fan Tie's homophobia, here's an excellent piece Juston wrote in response to the recent California court decision on Gay marriage that Justin entitled "Gay Marriage Sucks!" Now when Tie reads this, his dirty mind will run amuck so let me leave you with a direct quote about marriage from Justin:

Marriage is not a civil institution but a religious-cultural tradition that the State has (so far) been forced to respect and recognize—and it is centered around procreation, which is not an issue most homosexuals have to deal with.

He made that comment after quoting this:

As Camille Paglia points out:

I think [gay marriage] is a flash point for antigay backlash…. That’s the problem: calling it a marriage. If you ask the working class guy on the street, ‘Do you believe in gay marriages?’ it makes him absolutely have a convulsion of revulsion. Marriage was traditionally meant for male and female. It was a bond for the raising of children, so it always had a procreative meaning too, and it has a long sacred tradition behind it. I hate any time that gay causes get mixed up with seeming to profane other people’s sacred tradition. The gay activist leadership has been totally clumsy about that. Rather than treating it in a serious way and saying ‘We respect the tradition of marriage,’ gay activism is associated with throwing balloons of blood at the steps of St. Patrick’s.
​

The article is an enjoyable and informative piece and as a 50 something year practicing heterosexual, it did nothing but reconfirm that the tradition of marriage is between a man and a woman but at the same time, it's a tradition the State should not in any way be involved in. The article also has some funny moments and Justin pokes a bit of fun at himself and the gay community and his description of Gay Divorce Court on TV was funny too but also a very eye opening point.

 

[diesel96]

But hey, I'm the cynic anti-gov't, anarchist so what do I know!
@ me! [quote/]

You left out an 800 lb gorilla in the room who slept at a Holiday Inn
Just a tidbit for the thread:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/dnc/index.html

 

[Jones]

That Greenwald fellow knows a thing or two, doesn't he?

 

[wkmac]

That Greenwald fellow knows a thing or two, doesn't he?

Maybe we should elect him president!