Change we can believe in

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheGreatOne said:
. . . . "Selected not elected" ring a bell?
Hmmm . . . said of two-timer -- er, sorry, two-termer -- Bill Clinton, who never gained a majority of the popular vote?

Look, there's enough dissatisfaction at home to last a thousand years. Or, rather, there would be, were not the collective memory of the American people (or, at least, of its nattering classes) so frustratingly short. Let's simply hope that Mr. Obama and a Congress controlled by his partisans can do well what's necessary while avoiding doing what oughtn't be done.
 
A pleasant shock to see this discussion going on here. Won't be a shock if it gets out of hand and/or has to be shut down. Quite obviously and ineluctibly, ALL big name federal politicians are in the System with extremely rare exceptions. They don’t exist to give us what we want or need (or, uh, what the Constitution requires) but to bring themselves more money, power and glory. Same for many, many pols at all other levels including the obscure city and county govts I live under.

Anybody who actually fell for the campaign bunkum of either Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B this time around, I feel sorry for them -- they made need shock treatments if they haven’t learned the lesson of the past 20 years with the Clinton-Bush power mafia (which will now continue under Queen Hillary of State). Anybody who really wants to know what's going each day -- and only those who really want to know -- can simply check
[URL="http://www.anu.org/"]http://www.anu.org[/URL] each day or two. It links the real news from all kinds of sites -- liberal "mainstream" media, conservative blogs, libertarian (small-L) contingents...... but I warn you, the site dares to go the distance into the real issues. The mere mention of it here may indeed get this message knocked off, it's that "controversial".
 
The following essay was penned by an American conservative (who was a Reagan administration official):

...This malevolent lie was too much for the Russians and too much for the rest of the world. It was plain to all that the US, an aggressor state striving to encircle Russia with bases even to the edge of central Asia, had initiated a war that it then blamed on Russia. After Afghanistan, Iraq, Bush’s defense of Israel’s 2006 war criminal attack on Lebanon, and Bush’s false claims of an Iranian nuclear weapon, few, if any, countries any longer believe pronouncements of the US government. The US is regarded worldwide as an aggressor state that lies through its teeth.

This means that unless China decides to play the US and Russia off in order to emerge as the sole world power, there is no one to finance America’s side of the new cold war that the US government has created.

The only other way Washington can finance a new arms race with Russia is to cancel Social Security and Medicare, and to repudiate its massive foreign debts. If Washington does this, the likely result would be revolution at home and isolation internationally.

For decades Washington has prevailed because the US dollar is the reserve currency. It is the world’s money. This advantage allows Washington to purchase almost every other government. There are governments all over the world, from Europe to Egypt, from Ukraine to South Korea to Japan, that are owned by Washington. When Washington speaks of spreading freedom and democracy, Washington means it has purchased more governments to do its will.

These purchased governments do not represent their people. They represent American hegemony.

Now that the Great Hegemon is bankrupt and its economy is collapsing, thanks to unbridled greed, American influence is waning. The US dollar cannot survive the massive red ink that the US generates.

When the dollar collapses, the image of a strutting Washington as “the world’s only superpower” will evaporate. The evil that is the American government will find itself at war with its own people and those of the rest of the world.
Now it would nice if any Democrat had the cojones to say this. But this is too much to hope for. The Boy Wonder, the Messiah, is probably going to go along the same lines as his predecessor (if his appointments are any indicator).
 
A couple of things. If anyone thought that Obama was going to fundamentally and radically change the American system of government, they were only projecting their own desires onto Obama. Obama is not a radical politician and is very much a part of the "system," for good or for ill. If you wanted to vote for someone who was going to fundamentally change America, there were several choices on the ballot (at least in some states). Cynthia McKinney, for example. Or, at least in a few primaries, Dennis Kucinich.

BigBigbadwolf, discounting the differences between Democrats and Republicans, wrote: "Voting for a Democrat means voting for someone who wrings his hands each time he drops some cluster bombs or increases troop presence in Afghanistan." Can't speak yet about the cluster bombs, but Obama certainly isn't going to wring his hands when he increases troop presence in Afghanistan. He's going to increase troop levels without hesitation. He promised as much throughout the campaign and in all of the debates. So if you thought that Obama was going to pull all of the U.S. troops out from Afghanistan and Iraq on Day 1 (and while we're at it, single-handedly dismantle the military-industrial complex), you weren't paying attention during the campaign.

That being said, I think it's a mistake to discount the clear differences between Obama and both Bush and McCain. We heard the same thing in 2000 during the campaign between Gore and Bush. "Gore and Bush are just different versions of a corporate-friendly military industrial complex, etc. We need to vote for Nader." Now, we can argue about whether a Nader presidency would have been good or bad for the country, but it's crazy to think that 8 years of a Gore presidency would have been no better than 8 years of a Bush presidency. Would Alito and Roberts have been appointed to the Supreme Court? Would we have tilted our tax policies so heavily in favor of the rich and run our economy into the gutter? Would we have taken no action to help curb global warming? Would we have gone foolishly and ineptly into Iraq? Hell, would 9/11 have even happened if Gore had been president? (Presumably he might have actually read the infamous 8/6/2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.")

By the same token, I really just don't see how people can say that Obama is going to be no different than Bush. How much change, whether it's the right change, whether it's enough, we can argue about. But there is definitely going to be change.
 
Funny for months the US was saying there was no recession..now they posted dated it to December 2007. There will be change..in more job layoffs and a lower standard of living. Change in the fact that "hopefully" the US won't be a bully to foreign governments. But any "radical" or "dramatic" change to help the people won't occur until the Republican vs. Democratic ballot is changed into other categories.
 
Ron Paul stood for serious change. He was completely marginalized - by Republicans, Democrats, the media. Obama was / is nothing but hype.
 
jpm2004 said:
BigBigbadwolf, discounting the differences between Democrats and Republicans, wrote: "Voting for a Democrat means voting for someone who wrings his hands each time he drops some cluster bombs or increases troop presence in Afghanistan." Can't speak yet about the cluster bombs, but Obama certainly isn't going to wring his hands when he increases troop presence in Afghanistan. He's going to increase troop levels without hesitation. He promised as much throughout the campaign and in all of the debates. So if you thought that Obama was going to pull all of the U.S. troops out from Afghanistan and Iraq on Day 1 (and while we're at it, single-handedly dismantle the military-industrial complex), you weren't paying attention during the campaign.

For several months we had people on this forum waxing lyrical about Obama. More level-headed people were asking more sceptically what exactly would differ, what was behind all the fuzzy talk of "hope" and "change." These sceptics (which includes me) have now been vindicated, though it was pretty obvious all along.

Real change -- if it were possible at all -- lay with the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. What I have against Obama is he's another spineless and gutless figurehead but it goes beyond this: the imperium can only allow a certain breed of people at the top, and it is utterly incapable of internal reform, it can only change under the impetus of external shocks and jolts (military reverses in the Middle East, international creditors' unwillingness to finance the empire, etc.).
 
From Ben Stein:

If it were scientifically possible to create a man who is the exact opposite of "change" in the political and financial realm, which is what I recall Senator Obama talking about during the campaign, it would be Mr. Geithner.

In fact, if it had been possible for George W. Bush to run for and win a third term, wouldn't Mr. Geithner have been exactly whom he would have chosen to replace Henry Paulson if Mr. Paulson ever decided to leave the Treasury? But wait a second. Didn't Mr. Obama campaign against Bush policies? Is he now giving us a third Bush term? Geithner at Treasury, Gates at DOD, Mrs. Clinton at State? Sure looks a lot like what Bush would have chosen if he had been able to run and win.

Not that this is a big surprise: There is a permanent ruling class in this country, whatever they call themselves, no matter how they talk about change. They may not be very good at it, but there they are. "Meet the new boss," as the Who said, "same as the old boss."
 
Stanexpat said:
Obama on 95% percent of issues will be indistinguishable from Bush. People need to get real.

Is that right? Could you elaborate on the similarities?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top