Pogge even Rahm can't be three people
quote:
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Three House Democratic sources confirmed Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been offered a Chief of Staff job with an Obama White House and is currently "agonizing" over whether to take the job.
[url=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/04/1639284.aspx]msnbc[/url]
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
[b]Pogge even Rahm can't be three people[/b]
True enough.
Yes we can!
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]The millions of people who are working all across the country for change are going to feel that all they've done over the past two years was for nothing.[/b]
So what do you have to say to the anti-war protesters who elected a Democratic Congress 2 years ago and were disappointed?
That now the Democrats will have NO excuses.
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]That now the Democrats will have NO excuses.[/b]
And if they fail in the next 2 years?
What excuses did they have before?
The victory speech was OK, it can be seen [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05/raw-data-barack-obamas-victory-s... here at Fox News, [/url]and there's one line I'd like to draw attention to:
"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."
Same old, same old. What's abundantly clear to many of us in the rest of the world is that a new dawn of THE END OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP, especially the kind of leadership that flows from the barrel of a gun, is at hand. Too bad Barak Obama didn't find a way to express some humility for his country in this regard.
What a singular lack of imagination and humility. America will continue, therefore, to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, and kill, and wonder where the obstinate anti-US hatred comes from. But some of us with a brain know already. America and its Presidents think it OWNS the world, as Noam Chomsky so eloquently put it, and scratches its head in confusion as to why others might disagree with that prejudice.
Hooray. An African-American is President. I wonder if the US will be out of Iraq in 4 years? Out of Afghanistan? Will the torture in Guantanamo be ended by then? Will Americans have a health care system? Will they still be executing mentally disabled teenagers? Will the prison population drop below 2 million?
Well they didn't have a majority in the Senate and they had Bush vetoing the little they did try to pass.
Call them spineless and i'll agree with you--but those are the excuses that they're giving.
If the Democrats fail in the next 2 years to bring their country out of its current tailspin, then all bets are off anyway.
Either there's hope or there isn't. Unless Obama can implement real progressive solutions with vision then it will be collapse.
The US has 750+ military bases worldwide.
The false-premise Global War on Terror.
The Destruction of Iraq.
^ 3 places for Obama to show the world - is he just a new face on the same old war machine, or is he the genuine stealth liberal that has Rush Limbaugh sputtering in pretend anger ?
quote:
Originally posted by SwimmingLee:
[b]The US has 750+ military bases worldwide.The false-premise Global War on Terror.
The Destruction of Iraq.
^ 3 places for Obama to show the world - is he just a new face on the same old war machine, or is he the genuine stealth liberal that has Rush Limbaugh sputtering in pretend anger ?[/b]
I think it will be the same face on a slightly different war machine and Rush will consider that difference as OMG stealth liberal, I told you so! *sirens blaring*, man the guns, we're all going to die, we're all going to die pretend anger.
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]So what do you have to say to the anti-war protesters who elected a Democratic Congress 2 years ago and were disappointed?[/b]
The the struggle goes on, and that there's now more of a chance. What would you have said to them if a huge Nader vote had elected McCain? There's no way you could have argued that there was still hope.
Now we press harder and harder. Now we use the space created. We'd have had nothing to work with if McCain had been elected.
Ken or anyone else, do you have any knowledge or insight on how Pelosi and Obama get along?
[url=http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/]Nader: Will Obama be "Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"[/url]
Cute.
Nader handled that lying, pompous fascist from Fox News pretty well, I thought.
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
[b][url=http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/]Nader: Will Obama be "Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"[/url]Cute.[/b]
The actual quote: "Nader said that Obama had a choice between being Uncle Sam for the people, or Uncle Tom for the corporations."
Now I understand what he was saying and agree with the underlying meaning of the question (will Obama chose to be corporate hack or do what's best for the people) but wow, what a horrible and stupid way of saying it.
I think the question was asked in another thread about why Nadar doesn't get more support from progressives (something like that) well I can answer, though his views on corporations and problems with corporate rule are sound, many things I actually agree with...he's an asshole.
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
[b]Nader: Will Obama be "Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"Cute.[/b]
quote:
"That was the end of [Nader's] career."
Yep, thank God!
But not surprising, as it seems to me white men are incredibly threatened by this loss of white male hegemony, if the examples here at babble are anything to go by. It appears to have most certainly rocked their world.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Oh, really? Is white male hegemony dead now that Barack Obomba is president?
I should rather think that ended with the elevation of Condeleeza Rice to the head of the Deparment of State, if the mere colour and sex of the person were the most relevan issue.
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Oh, really? Is white male hegemony dead now that Barack Obomba is president?[/b]
yep, it is its death throes, though perhaps white men are still in denying it to themselves, in the hopes that it is not, but still smearing Obama anyway. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
We need only listen to those racist words of Nader's to understand this, plus of course the irrational smears here.
But heh, I will leave this thread to you and cue.
This line is pretty much a passive agressive cheap shot Remind. There are issues to be discussed.
I guess in the midst of composing your cursorary off-hand smears, you missed the part where I stated that I tacitly supported Obama. You may have noticed that even though I share many of the same concerns that Spector has raised here, I have barely contributed to any of these threads on this issue, prior to the election.
There is a reason for that.
*shrug*
Well how many times in one night can you figure out new way to say "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
Nothing to that. Wether or not Spector or myself feels threatened by the supposed collapse of "white male hegemony". Its just a smear.
You have no crystal ball. However there are the facts and the arguements, and that is what you can see, argue those.
*shrug*
and just to keep the record clear, my last sentence only included you by way of saying that I would not participate in the thread any longer, as you had entered it. As such, I suppose I could have left mspector out of it, but I did not want him to think I was avoiding responses to him, if he responded back to me. And I suppose I should have made that clearer. But I have now anyway.
Anyway cheers....
Oh well, thanks for clariying your completely gratuitous attack.
Cheers.
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Oh, really? Is white male hegemony dead now that Barack Obomba is president?[/b]
Of course not. But it is on the defensive. This is a sign that it ultimately CAN be beaten.
Or that progress can be co-opted.
I don't know how I feel about how Nader said what he said. But I do know that he would likely have not gotten a chance to say the other things he said on Fox news, had he not said what he said.
He got to call that fucking asshole a bully for one thing, and he was clearly shaken by that.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But I do know that he would likely have not gotten a chance to say the other things he said on Fox news, had he not said what he said.[/b]
Clever.
Do you deny it?
Well no i guess i don't. Nader's been increasingly marginalized lately so i guess he has to use any means necessary to get his message out. I suspect there are better ways to do this than calling Obama an Uncle Tom on Fox News--mostly because it tarnishes Nader's own brand--but i appreciate that he needs to do what it takes to get his message out.
At this point he mostly strikes me as an irrelevant dinosaur, his movement building not being what it used to be. No wonder he has to go on Fox doing that. I think he could be reaching more people by using other strategies.
What i thought was clever about your comment is that i thought it was tweaking an implicit argument from another topic--that Obama was justified in not taking a stand in favour of equal marriage because he would not have gotten a chance to be president if he had.
That was in fact the point of what I was getting at generally. Many people have made many arguement forgiving Obama for saying certain things and supporting certain kinds of policies for the good of the cause. So, perhaps people should be a little cautious in condeming him for being a little tasteless in his presentation.
Its not just "his" message. Its an important message that reflects many of the realities of US politics, and the present situation in the USA, that has huge reprecussion world wide.
Its the first time I have heard anyone even use the term "poor people" in relation to the US election on any mainstream media.
There are some lies I hope that Obama told us. I hope that he lied about increasing the military defence spending. I hope he lied about "curbing Russian aggression", I hope he lied about sending more troops to Afghanistan.
[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I agree with the message, i just feel the presentation isn't very effective and that, as an agent of change, Nader is stale.
I certainly appreciate that it's an important message that needs to be part of the narrative on election night.
You are probably right. Nader should have refused the interview. It would have been the moral decision.
Well the idea is that Nader made this provocative statement in order to get on the news shows, right? So the alternative would be not making the statement and not getting called, not making the statement and refusing the call.
I agree that he wouldn't have gotten the interview if he hadn't made the statement--but i believe the cost was greater than the benefit.
Tough call. By the way are you aware that your arguement that Nader is stale and irrelevant, more or less tracks the statements made by the Fox news people on the show?
Yeah i saw the video, i know what they said. I didn't get the opinion from Fox News though.
Do you disagree? Do you find Nader fresh and relevant?
Me. Well I have been trying not to encourage them by paying a lot of attention to the whole process. I think its basically a fraud, top to bottom. I think any discussion is really just contributing to the hype. I really think the whole thing is going down the tubes, not matter how many smarmy, smooth talking bullies you put on TV to suddenly get all "shocked" when Nader says something a little off colour.
So basically I think the cards will land where they land, and that opposition to the process will come from the outside, and the destruction of the fraudulent system is the only real hope for change.
Perhaps Nader has set up some ground work for that, and perhaps he has done some good grass roots organizing in the campaign, because I think those kinds of local organizations may become increasingly relevant as the system rots out.
Being able to organize effectively is an important skill, and so, any kind of opposition is good, especially that which actually helps people to think and act politically and empower themselves and others.
I agree with you about a lot, especially that the oppressive system needs to collapse before any real change can arrive.
What i'm saying about Nader isn't that i find his comments tasteless-it's that he will alienate people. Look at the knee jerk reaction that the name Elizabeth May gets around here. Greens post some quote about how EMay wants to do things differently and it infuriates Dippers. Because of comments she's made, like linking Layton to the Taliban, she's got no credibility with Dippers. In fact, some party loyalists are so automatically loyal that they'll start promoting something just because it's the OPPOSITE of what May says. I'm sure you've seen it.
Now i feel that same disdain for EMay too--i don't trust her at all. But if i did, if i honestly felt that she was trying to promote co operation between parties, then i'd say all the slagging of the NDP that she does is extremely counter productive.
And unlike May, with Nader i believe him and trust him. But fuck he doesn't know much about how to influence people. People are pouring out into the street crying because they never thought electing a black president was possible, and also because the nightmare of Bush is over, having this cathartic experience, hepped up on Obamamania, and Nader goes on Fox News to say that Obama might end up being an Uncle Tom.
If Nader's trying to get Obama supporters to hold him to his promises of change, he's not being very bright about it.
Nader has been at this a long time, and maybe he just wanted an opportunity to tell that guy to fuck off?
Perhaps Obama will do for the USA what Mikhail Gorbachoev did for the Soviet Union. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Perhaps Obama will do for the USA what Mikhail Gorbachoev did for the Soviet Union. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Gorby didn't break up the USSR. That was Boris and the other two stooges of the west at the time.
Really? I thought it was that clique of doddering old war heros that locked him up in Sochi, and tried to replace him that killed his tenure as Chair of the CPSU, and the Soviet Union. Utter political paralysis.
Boris did his Brutus routine on the steps of the Kremlin, nothing more.
[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Boris did his Brutus routine on the steps of the Kremlin, nothing more.
[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
Yeltsin effectively dissolved the USSR in December of 1991, and pledged to transform Russia into a capitalist market economy. Stooges Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich signed the agreement creating the CIS.
And then when the neoliberal mumbo jumbo began failing right away, Yeltsin managed to distance himself from the corruption in the eyes of Russian voters and received even more money from the west to transform himself into the true champion of free market capitalist reforms. He was about as popular by 1999 as RB Bennet was when all of three Canadians showed up to see him ship out to England from Halifax harbor. Yeltsin, Chubais, and a team of HIID economists made Russians long for the good old days of state socialism.
Zia and Jean Chretian must be in there somwhere, eh Fidel? Your slipping.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Zia and Jean Chretian must be in there somwhere,[/b]
Who were two stooges of the vicious empire, one ruling by military dictatorship and the other by successive phony majorities before and after the end of cold war?
Perhaps you'll elaborate sometime in an appropriate thread on how the virtuous Shah of Iran and brother-in-law of King Zahir were about to create "liberal democracy" in Afghanistan just prior to the vicious empire hoisting militant Islam in Central Asia. Nearly a good laugh that was.
Long thread. Let's look for one that's already open before starting a new one, since there have been a lot of Obama threads over the past 24 hours or so.
