as i have said there is to much at stake to not vote for the person who can beat the respublicans !
On Sep 9, 5:14 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The path of the lesser evil is evil. Obama represents more of the > same, he represents no hope, no future. > *He hasn't condemned the patriot act and the abrogation of habeas > corpus > *He hasn't condemned the use of torture > *He didn't even condemn the arrest of journalists at the RNC. > > The economic conditions the US are in are to be found in all > industrialized countries, the Bush administration cannot be > responsible for the a world economic crisis, this is systemic, it is > not the result of policy of any single government. > > Forget about my socialist beliefs, these do not enter into the > equation. Objective reality is what is important. The objective > reality is neither party represents a way forward for the American > people, what is to be done is a separate question. Will McCain , Obama > or Ron Paul for that matter act for and on behalf of the people of the > US? No they will not. They will act on behalf of capital over labor > always, but couch it in the terms of unity while it is the workers > that will make the sacrifices, die in the wars. > > On Sep 9, 5:27 pm, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > because at this time he is the only hope our country has for a future > > we must at all costs remove the bush free trade at all cost > > republicans from power if America is to survive ! in a perfect world i > > would have voted for Ron Paul and in fact did vote for him the > > primary . but this isn't a perfect world ! > > > On Sep 8, 7:22 pm, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If that be the case, how can you give your support to Obama? > > > > On Sep 9, 1:52 am, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > i am a critic of government both republican and democrat > > > > > On Sep 8, 11:04 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Mikey, > > > > > > You are very outspoken critic of the Bush administration, and with > > > > > good cause. The Bush administration is nothing more than a criminal > > > > > cabal of gangster’s thugs and war criminals. However you fail to apply > > > > > the same standards and objectivity when it comes to the Democrats and > > > > > Obama. > > > > > > Without listing a litany of transgressions, Obama supports the war on > > > > > terror. The war on terror is central to the Bush administrations > > > > > waging of preemptive imperialist wars in the Middle East. It is a > > > > > bogus, opened ended war that can be invoked indefinitely to justify > > > > > further military aggression by the US without provocation. > > > > > > Obama supports the breeching of Pakistani Sovereignty resulting in the > > > > > deaths of innocent civilians. Obama has supported the funding of the > > > > > war on the pretense of supporting the troops, when any rational person > > > > > knows bringing the troops home is the best support that can be > > > > > bestowed upon them. > > > > > > This alone makes Obama complicit in the heinous war crimes committed > > > > > by the Bush administration, along with most of his reprehensible > > > > > colleagues. > > > > > > Obama promises social reforms when he knows very well he cannot make > > > > > good these promises. The US is ostensibly bankrupt, surviving on the > > > > > influx of overseas investment that is rapidly drying up due to the > > > > > global economic crisis. The Fed cannot continue to bail out failing > > > > > banking institutions; it does not have infinite resources. > > > > > > This scenario is repeated in every industrialized country, as all so- > > > > > called workers parties due to economic conditions can NO longer grant > > > > > concessions to the working class and have swung sharply to the right > > > > > clawing back all the hard won concessions won by workers after WW2, > > > > > including the Dems. It was Clinton that lead the assault on the US > > > > > health care system. > > > > > > Economics and the demands of capital (big business) drive policy, not > > > > > the will of the masses. Ideology is just that, an ideal that needs the > > > > > right environment to be realized. This environment does not exist in > > > > > the current socio-economic set up. > > > > > > Regards Frank > > > > > > On Sep 8, 8:16 pm, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Sep. 07 > > > > > > electoral vote count > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Obama 301 McCain 224 Ties 13 > > > > > > Senate Dem 56 GOP 43 Ties 1 > > > > > > House Dem 243 GOP 192 > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:48 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Obama’s lead in the polls crumbles as he turns sharply to the > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > 6th September > > > > > > > > Well before the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s > > > > > > > Presidential running mate, the Obama campaign had suffered a > > > > > > > palpable > > > > > > > loss of political momentum which elaborate attempts at media > > > > > > > stagecraft > > > > > > > —the candidate’s trip to the Middle East and Europe, the hype > > > > > > > over the > > > > > > > vice-presidential selection process, the convention itself—have > > > > > > > failed > > > > > > > to reverse. Polls show a tight race between Obama and his > > > > > > > Republican > > > > > > > rival Senator John McCain, despite overwhelming popular hostility > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the Bush administration and the Republican Party. > > > > > > > > There has been complete silence in both the media and the > > > > > > > Democratic > > > > > > > Party over the real source of this decline, which has little to do > > > > > > > with negative advertising or the supposed prowess of the > > > > > > > Republican > > > > > > > “attack machine” or the effect of "wild card" Sarah Palin. In > > > > > > > fact, > > > > > > > the falloff in backing for Obama is sharpest among those > > > > > > > layers—the > > > > > > > young, self-described liberals, and those most hostile to the > > > > > > > Iraq war > > > > > > > and the Bush administration—who were among his most enthusiastic > > > > > > > supporters in the primary campaign. > > > > > > > > Obama’s lead in the polls has crumbled as he turned sharply to the > > > > > > > right following his primary victory over Hillary Clinton. His > > > > > > > campaign > > > > > > > faltered not because of a Republican media blitz—Obama continues > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > greatly outspend McCain—but because of the Democratic candidate’s > > > > > > > demonstrative efforts to disassociate his campaign and prospective > > > > > > > presidency from any semblance of progressive change. > > > > > > > > The Democratic presidential nominee voted in the Senate for > > > > > > > increased > > > > > > > wiretapping powers for the FBI and NSA, downplayed his past > > > > > > > criticism > > > > > > > of the war in Iraq, positioned himself as the most fervent > > > > > > > advocate of > > > > > > > military escalation in Afghanistan, and echoed the Bush > > > > > > > administration’s saber-rattling over the conflict between Russia > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > Georgia. He said little about the continued deterioration of the > > > > > > > US > > > > > > > economy, reiterated his support for fiscal austerity policies that > > > > > > > effectively rule out any significant program of social reform, and > > > > > > > prostrated himself before the religious right in a joint > > > > > > > appearance > > > > > > > with McCain at a fundamentalist church. > > > > > > > > None of these positions came as a surprise to his most important > > > > > > > backers, billionaires like Warren Buffett and the Pritzker family > > > > > > > (Hyatt Hotels), other sections of the financial aristocracy and > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Democratic Party establishment. But Obama’s emergence as an > > > > > > > utterly > > > > > > > conventional and conservative bourgeois politician—culminating in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > selection of Senator Joseph Biden, a 35-year veteran of > > > > > > > Washington, as > > > > > > > his running mate—has deflated whatever there was of a popular > > > > > > > mobilization, however manipulated and misguided, behind his > > > > > > > campaign. > > > > > > > > Obama was never the candidate of a genuine oppositional movement > > > > > > > against the political establishment. On the contrary, his > > > > > > > candidacy > > > > > > > was carefully planned by a section of that establishment, > > > > > > > disaffected > > > > > > > from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, particularly > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > Iraq, and the support for it from Democratic congressional leaders > > > > > > > like Clinton and Biden. > > > > > > > > The Obama camp had no fundamental or principled differences with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > use of war as an instrument to secure the interests of US > > > > > > > imperialism. > > > > > > > Its criticism of Bush was that he had waged war ineffectively and > > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > certain extent needlessly, and that the administration’s obsessive > > > > > > > focus on Iraq had become a diversion from broader global concerns. > > > > > > > Equally important, by defining his principal difference with > > > > > > > Clinton > > > > > > > in terms of her original vote to authorize the war in 2002, Obama > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > able to make at least a limited appeal to antiwar sentiment, and > > > > > > > channel the mass opposition to the war back into the straitjacket > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the Democratic Party. > > > > > > > > The divisions over Iraq were of a tactical character. In the past > > > > > > > several months, however, a bipartisan consensus has emerged, > > > > > > > embracing > > > > > > > virtually the entire political establishment, Democrat and > > > > > > > Republican, > > > > > > > that the Bush administration escalation in Iraq has been a > > > > > > > “success,” > > > > > > > and that the US occupation has been at least temporarily > > > > > > > stabilized at > > > > > > > a level of violence acceptable to Washington (if not to the Iraqi > > > > > > > people themselves). > > > > > > > > Now that the positions of Obama and Clinton on Iraq have largely > > > > > > > converged with those of Bush and McCain, what accounts for the > > > > > > > seemingly intractable divisions in the Democratic Party itself? > > > > > > > As the > > > > > > > WSWS explained during the primary voting, while political > > > > > > > differences > > > > > > > over foreign policy provided the initial impetus for > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
