[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 09-23 19:29, Collins Richey wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Sean LeBlanc <seanleblanc at comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 09-21 18:31, Collins Richey wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I cannot vote for a Democrat. The party that supports and draws funds
> > > from an organization like moveon.org is not qualified for office, IMO.
> > > The fact that none of the leading Democratic candidates have chastised
> > > moveon.org for labeling our military commander in Iraq a traitor means
> > > that they are just playing politics with the lives of our soldiers.
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, if anything, the Democrats are losers because they more or
> > less got a mandate last election to start investigations for impeachment,
> > and impeachment was "taken off the table" the minute they were sworn in.
> > WTF?  THAT'S an opposition party? The party as a whole needs a spinal
> > transplant.
> >
> 
> I'm not convinced that government by impeachment is much of an
> improvement over the mess we have right now. Even though Clinton was
> and is a scumbag, I wasn't really in favor of impeachment proceedings
> even in his case.

I'm not sure what the options are when a president is violating the law.
Bush just ignoring FISA is extremely alarming to me...and the laid-back
attitude taken to it by the citizens of this country concerns me more. 

 
> > And if Hillary or Obama are what the Democrats are putting up for election
> > in 2008, I might not vote at all. I'm beginning to understand why my parents
> > haven't voted in years. It mostly seems to be a puppet show put on for the
> > masses. I was entertaining notions of voting Democratic to try to get the
> > current band of sociopaths the hell out, but if they are going to provide
> > that sort of "opposition", why bother?
> >
> 
> Anything to be accomplished by replacing the current sociopaths with
> the left-wing equivalent?

Eh, probably not much...esp. if we are talking about Hillary. We'd have
virtually the same pathological foreign policy. She's already said she would
have STILL voted for the war in Iraq, knowing what she knows now. Then she
backpedaled from that later, but still....  
 
> > The only candidates that I've heard say anything approaching sanity are not
> > going to be electable, because the media has already largely dismissed them.
> > One is Kucinich, and the other is Ron Paul.
> >
> 
> An what, pray tell, is so far from sanity about the Romney and
> Giuliani campaigns?

Well, to be fair, I haven't followed all the campaigns closely, but as far
as I know, it's the same old same old from them. Ron Paul on the other hand,
had a long speech (sounded like it was read) and it was pretty boring
delivery, but interesting content about money system, our debt being bought
up by China. Same with a Kucinich speech. Both had a LOT of reality in their
speech. Most politicians talk a lot of fantasy, of course, and that's what
most people will go for every time. Just look what happened to Carter when
he was pushing energy efficiency (reality) - Americans kicked him out as
soon as possible. So Ron Paul and Kucinich will never get elected to POTUS,
maybe not because what they are saying is so sane, but couched in terms of
reality...not the "morning in America" crap that Americans like to hear,
instead of what they NEED to hear.
  

> > What constituents besides the ones on K street asked for something like
> > NAFTA/CAFTA? NAFTA passed under Clinton. CAFTA under Bush. Can we really say
> > these two are really that different? Both of those look like neoliberal
> > policies to me.
> 
> Agreed. Bush is a RINO (Republican in name only). Except for the tax
> cuts which helped the economy get through a rough patch most
> everything he has done is neoliberal.

No, I mean neoliberal as in, the policies that Reagan/BushI&II/Clinton/ all
pushed - the extreme laissez-faire type of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

The overwhelming theme for all these presidents has been to keep marching on
that path. And we have a new one. Have you heard of the Amero and SPP? Yeah,
I heard about the Amero and blew it off as the right-wing, black helicopter
crowd whispering about NWO stuff again. Turns out there are people really
advocating it. Adbusters had an article on SPP - people meeting in secret,
and only inviting one WSJ reporter, who of course, would be sympathetic to
schemes like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America

I'm not opposed to trade in itself, of course. And free trade worldwide is
probably a good thing. But any system written by elites is going to be for
elites. I don't remember Bush campaigning on this issue, do you? But we're
getting it, apparently.

Here is the Adbusters article:
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/71.php?id=276

FTA:

However, thanks to freedom-of-information requests obtained by Judicial
Watch, a Washington-based legal watchdog, the forum.s agenda shows the group
was looking at how they could merge the three countries into a North
American Union: a monolithic super-state that would look similar to the
European Union but without the referendums, elections or balance of power.
Topics on the forum.s program included: .A Vision for North America,. .North
American Energy Strategy,. .Demographic and Social Dimensions of North
American Integration,. .Border Infrastructure. and .Opportunities for
Security Co-operation.. Instead of just batting eyelashes at each other like
MacKay and Rice, this group was exchanging wedding vows.

Recognizing the obvious controversy that comes with secretly circumventing a
country.s sovereignty, the members of the North American Forum want to keep
North American integration deep in the back rooms of bureaucracy and far
away from the public spotlight. The meeting.s official agenda notes that
integration should be done as clandestinely as possible.

.While a vision is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more
benefit and bring more people on board (.evolution by stealth.),. say the
agenda.s notes. 



 
> > Anyway, this isn't aimed at you so much, Collins, I'm just faintly amused at
> > all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over an activist group like moveon.org
> > from the right-wing noise machine,
> 
> I take no offense, but we must be listening to different noise
> machines. The ones I hear are not complaining about Soros funding the
> party, but rather about moveon.org slandering the General who is
> fighting a war and about the despicable fact that the New York Times
> gave him a bargain rate for the malicious advertisement.

I've since posting this read the article, and the page on Moveon.org that
lists urls backing up their claims. If it's true, it's not slander, and in
free country, no one is beyond legitimate criticism. I don't understand the
problem with NYT giving him a bargain rate, either?

Maybe someone over there felt guilty after being such a champion for the war.

 
> I don't have a clue what the Moonies have to do with this. I thought
> they disappeared years ago. You are welcome to disabuse me of this
> belief.

My point was that they help fund the right-wing. He funds Bush Sr's
speeches. He owns Washington Times.

Paul Weyrich is another odd character, too, and funds lots of think tanks
and radio shows, IIRC. And I've never heard his name mentioned on corporate
television. Soros, however, is a name I've heard on CNN/MSNBC, of course
Fox, etc. I have to wonder why. Is it only because he's foreign? Or is it
because he funds an organization that isn't some moderate or hard-right one?
 
> > I don't think if the rubber meets the road that Romney will get on
> > Republican ticket in any case...too many evangelicals start getting their
> > back up over Mormons,
> >
> 
> You could be right. There are a lot of people who believe in freedom
> of religion only as long as it's THEIR religion. And there are those
> who believe that NO religion and/or the religion of our enemies are
> the only appropriate choices.
> 
> I shudder to think what is ahead for us. If the pollsters are right
> and Ms. Clinton is the choice, we are in for worse times than we
> already have.

As I said above, our foreign policy will probably remain just as
pathological. I doubt any fiscal policy would change much either. After all,
Ms. Clinton was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart. The national health
care plan she talked about doesn't remove HMOs from the picture. And Murdoch
helped out with one of her fundraisers, or something, too, didn't he? What
sort of "progressive" is that, really? How different would she be from Bush,
really? 

My guess is not at all.
 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
I use to have a handle on life; then it broke.