10 Reasons Not To Support Obama [Archive]

Geronimo Pratt

14th February 2008, 18:24

Note: This is not advocating any other candidate or party, just responding to the liberal obsession with Obama.

10 Reasons Not To Support Obama

1. He will give the appearance of racial equality without working to undo institutional racism and white privilege.

2. He will provide an attempt for whites to salvage their white guilt and claim that they are not racist because they voted for Obama.

3. His position on the Iraq war has been inconsistent especially regarding funding (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2970930) and vague/weak plans for withdrawal (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/05/waiting_for_specifics_on_iraq.html). Obama wants a unilateral foreign policy of "spreading American democracy" to every corner of the globe through military power. He supports an increase (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html)of defense spending and a 100,000 troop incease in Iraq. Behind private doors he talks like a mix between Cold War hawks and neoconservatives.

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/dynamic_page.php?id=64

Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

4. His foreign policy advisors (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us)are responsible for mass murder and imperialistic interventions. They all have close connections and serve on the same imperialist foreign policy think-tanks and boards (http://www.immortal-technique.com/forum/index.php/topic,7629.msg105207.html#msg105207)as the foreign policy advisors of ultra-hawk John McCain.

5. Most of his political positions remain fundamentally the same (http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naacp.org%2Fnews %2Fpress%2F2008-02-01%2FRESPONSES.Clinton_Obama.pdf&images=yes)as Clinton's.

6. His campaign has drawn in more Wall Street money (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/16/politics/p151326D89.DTL&type=politics) than any other. He has dozens of corporations registered as lobbyists (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobbyists-on-obamas-08-payroll-2007-12-20.html) under his campaign including Lockheed Martin, Wal-Mart, and British Petroleum.

7. His "diplomacy" on Iran aggressively threatens regime change (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_iran_inducements/2007/11/01/46064.html) and he introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran_Sanctions_Enabling_Act_of_200 7).

8. He is an unwavering supporter (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1)of Israel and its policies.

9. He is basically just another center-left neoliberal (http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/608/608_04_Obama.shtml). Even proposing further free-market reforms in the already "structurally-adjusted" Africa.
http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2008-02-01/RESPONSES.Clinton_Obama.pdf

To ensure that these goals are achieved as president, I will seek to: expand the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which provides incentives for African countries to build free markets and eases them into the global trading community, and work to ensure that Africa's key exports gain greater access to American markets.

10. His universal healthcare program will not provide universal access to healthcare (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=34)nor will it create single payer healthcare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-par_b_84862.html). It will leave the fundamentals of the insurance system in tact.

SouthernBelle82

14th February 2008, 19:21

1) So you're a psychic now? Wow. Can you tell me what grade I'll get finally in criminology?

2) Again with the psychic powers. Wow. I'm psychic and I didn't even get this. This has nothing to do with Obama. This is each person's individual selves. Only the people can know this.

3) Obama also talks about getting out of Iraq and he was against the situation. Of course it's easy to say that with no record like with Kerry in 2004 and Clinton now. I was against Iraq so should I be president? ;)

4) I agree there and don't like the fact neocons and other conservatives are liking him like Colin Powell. That makes me iffy.

5) This is true. Also sometimes he doesn't show up or votes "present." Now sometimes you vote present to keep the conversation going but if you know it's going to pass or fail why do that? Why not just vote your heart?

6) I think Clinton and Obama are probably equal especially since Clinton has had D.C. ties and political ties a bit longer than Obama. Not by much of course but still a lil more.

7) Well yes and Clinton voted to call Iran's legitimate army a terrorist group. :rolleyes: That was disgusting too. Do you know how he voted on that? One minute he talks about wanting to talk to people like Iran's president and President Chavez and the next he's doing this stuff.

8) Yep he's appeared at AIPAC I believe. Maybe once he's in office and can see what's REALLY going on there things will change but I'm not hoping.

9) You mean like NAFTA/CAFTA? Yuck.

10) Yup. As long as there's one insurance company involved it will never be what it's supposed to be like with France, Cuba, Britain etc.

Note: This is not advocating any other candidate or party, just responding to the liberal obsession with Obama.

10 Reasons Not To Support Obama

1. He will give the appearance of racial equality without working to undo institutional racism and white privilege.

2. He will provide an attempt for whites to salvage their white guilt and claim that they are not racist because they voted for Obama.

3. His position on the Iraq war has been inconsistent especially regarding funding (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2970930) and vague/weak plans for withdrawal (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/05/waiting_for_specifics_on_iraq.html). Obama wants a unilateral foreign policy of "spreading American democracy" to every corner of the globe through military power. He supports an increase (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html)of defense spending and a 100,000 troop incease in Iraq. Behind private doors he talks like a mix between Cold War hawks and neoconservatives.

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/dynamic_page.php?id=64

4. His foreign policy advisors (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us)are responsible for mass murder and imperialistic interventions. They all have close connections and serve on the same imperialist foreign policy think-tanks and boards (http://www.immortal-technique.com/forum/index.php/topic,7629.msg105207.html#msg105207)as the foreign policy advisors of ultra-hawk John McCain.

5. Most of his political positions remain fundamentally the same (http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naacp.org%2Fnews %2Fpress%2F2008-02-01%2FRESPONSES.Clinton_Obama.pdf&images=yes)as Clinton's.

6. His campaign has drawn in more Wall Street money (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/16/politics/p151326D89.DTL&type=politics) than any other. He has dozens of corporations registered as lobbyists (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobbyists-on-obamas-08-payroll-2007-12-20.html) under his campaign including Lockheed Martin, Wal-Mart, and British Petroleum.

7. His "diplomacy" on Iran aggressively threatens regime change (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_iran_inducements/2007/11/01/46064.html) and he introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran_Sanctions_Enabling_Act_of_200 7).

8. He is an unwavering supporter (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1)of Israel and its policies.

9. He is basically just another center-left neoliberal (http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/608/608_04_Obama.shtml). Even proposing further free-market reforms in the already "structurally-adjusted" Africa.
http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2008-02-01/RESPONSES.Clinton_Obama.pdf

10. His universal healthcare program will not provide universal access to healthcare (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=34)nor will it create single payer healthcare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-par_b_84862.html). It will leave the fundamentals of the insurance system in tact.

Geronimo Pratt

14th February 2008, 19:56

1) So you're a psychic now? Wow. Can you tell me what grade I'll get finally in criminology?

2) Again with the psychic powers. Wow. I'm psychic and I didn't even get this. This has nothing to do with Obama. This is each person's individual selves. Only the people can know this.

Psychic? Funny that you use this considering most liberals supporting Obama are so desperate for some sort of imaginary change that they believe Obama will be a "trojan horse". All evidence is to the contrary though. Whites are currently in a love affair with Obama and for good reasons. He rarely mentions race for the purpose of appeasing to whites, he plays into this as much as whites as a collective do.

What is his plan to counter the ethnic cleansing and privatization of New Orleans? The entire black social web of a major U.S. city is articifically torn to shreads and he never mentions it. This is actually occuring more slowly in every major American city and Obama has nothing to counter gentrification and displacement. The fragile black middle-class is being decimated by the subprime lending crisis that disproportionately targeted people of color. Blacks are on the verge of the largest loss of wealth in their modern history and Obama only wants a couple reformist caps to fix it! He refuses to even go into depth about issues facing the black community; not to mention the roles of white institutions.

White liberals are rallying around Obama as a status symbol for blacks because they can get rid of their guilt without actually making any fundamental change.

3) Obama also talks about getting out of Iraq and he was against the situation. Of course it's easy to say that with no record like with Kerry in 2004 and Clinton now. I was against Iraq so should I be president? ;)

At the beginning I made it obvious that I was for no other candidate so pulling the hypocrisy of others to disguise Obama's will not work on me. If Obama talks about getting out of Iraq in public but behind private doors discusses raising troop levels to 100,000 its hypocrisy plain and simple. The least minimal requirement he could carry out in his foreign policy is unwavering opposition to an imperialist war of mass murder tipping on the scale of genocide.

4) I agree there and don't like the fact neocons and other conservatives are liking him like Colin Powell. That makes me iffy.

Neoconservatives are not just supporting him but recieving spots as chief advisors to his foreign policy. Its not just neocons either, its liberal Cold War imperialists responsible for a multitude of atrocities expanding throughout several presidencies. I'm expecting a lot better "imperialist efficiency" of the current candidates; at least thats what they promise.

6) I think Clinton and Obama are probably equal especially since Clinton has had D.C. ties and political ties a bit longer than Obama. Not by much of course but still a lil more.

Not to mention Obama's long public crusade against corporate lobbying and "special interests". I guess a coalition of multinational corporations and elite foreign policy advisors will bring about Obama's campaign of change.

8) Yep he's appeared at AIPAC I believe. Maybe once he's in office and can see what's REALLY going on there things will change but I'm not hoping.

If anything is going to change in Obama's mind, this is one of the last, based on the zealously of his unwavering support for Israel.

9) You mean like NAFTA/CAFTA? Yuck.

He actually went against CAFTA which he deserves points for but he is as aggressive in support for "free markets" as any other neoliberal democrat. He just wanted to reform a couple provisions on CAFTA, not fundamentally oppose it and support an alternative. Notice he doesn't even discuss Central America in his plans for "expanding free markets", only Africa. In his mind, Central America has already been done so now its time for more.

14th February 2008, 20:14

Supports pouring more resources into the occupation of Afghanistan
And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban.

Supports the US Military Involvement in Pakistan
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Increase Military Funding
I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Supports perpetuating the “War on Terror”
We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil.

“America House” propaganda campaign
I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs.

Voted to Reauthorize the Patriot Act
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00025

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

-Exelon Corp., the leading US nuclear power company, is Obama’s fourth largest contributor

Keep in mind that the majority of this I pulled from a single speech.

http://www.marxist.com/barack-obama-alternative-us-workers030707.htm

bobroberts

14th February 2008, 20:59

Any candidate with a realistic chance of winning the presidency will hold positions leftists will find deplorable. Any candidate who holds leftist positions would be wise to hide them, and if they didn't they would face the full-on wrath of the media and the corporate giants, quickly becoming marginalized. If they refuse to be marginalized, and continue to win support, they would be stopped cold by superdelegates. If they managed to get past that obstacle, they would be stopped either through a completely fabricated media controversy, or through the actions of a "lone nut". That's just the nature of this "democratic" system. Progress will only be marginal, if it occurs at all.

Dimentio

14th February 2008, 21:02

I support Mike Huckabee.

R_P_A_S

14th February 2008, 21:29

Great post Geronimo! i like it

R_P_A_S

14th February 2008, 21:30

can we do one on Hillary as well?

STI

14th February 2008, 21:36

I'll support Huckabee when he makes Presidental Self-Immolation a key platform issue.

SamiBTX

14th February 2008, 21:54

I'd still much rather it be Obama than Hillary.

Dimentio

14th February 2008, 22:04

I'll support Huckabee when he makes Presidental Self-Immolation a key platform issue.

In practice he is.

He is one of several examples which shows that the evangelical right is quite angry.

The evangelical right will probably flush down the USA in the toilet if they ever get power. Science will be destroyed, and the USA ruling establishment will face a cultural war which will weaken both factions. If evangelical populists gain power.

jake williams

14th February 2008, 22:05

I basically agree with TS.

Obama annoys the hell out of me, but what annoys me even more is that everyone supports him - which is the whole problem. Everyone supports him because he has no policies, at least public ones. He's just "loveable", which in a lot of ways just means "obedient".

Dimentio

14th February 2008, 22:32

Cheung Mo

15th February 2008, 00:45

Mike Malloy has pointed out on many occasions that Obama's advisors are more progressive than Clinton's. Given that the DLC and DNC are the modern Democratic Party's most reactionary organisms, I think we can accept this argument. And he won't be any worse than most of the "Socialist" International until he starts persecuting Egypt's atheists, advocating the assassination of Hugo Chavez, oppressing Nicaragua's women, funding Nepali feudalists, killing Jamaican homosexuals, or trapping Mexican workers in sham unions while slaughtering guerillas, pursuing a neoliberal agenda,and backing right-wing death squads.

If these social democrats keep setting the bar so fucking low, the Bushes and the Merkels are going to keep stomping all over the left.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th February 2008, 01:49

There's one reason you need not to support Obama: he's a capitalist politician.

Comrade Rage

15th February 2008, 01:52

There's one reason you need not to support Obama: he's a capitalist politician.That reason was good enough for me.

SouthernBelle82

15th February 2008, 18:13

Sorry but as a white girl I don't like talking about how other white's feel about Obama etc. and their voting. That's their own issue to deal with or not to deal with. See what I'm saying? My brother is also white and he voted for Obama in the primary's because he thought he was the least insane one running. That's how he looks at elections. Who is the least insane? Heh heh. Maybe he doesn't mention race because it isn't an issue to him at all? You do know his mama is white right? :rolleyes: Sorry but I just feel that's stupid.

Well I don't follow him closely but maybe you can start with going to his official website and seeing if he mentions it there? That might be a start. Just a little tidbit. If he has John Edwards as a running mate I'm sure he would have a lot of good ideas to help get started. I would suggest putting someone in charge of FEMA who knows what the hell they're doing for starters but that's just me.

Well even if Obama is elected president there's still going to be race problems. That's never going to go away. What about electing Hillary? Would they feel better about how they treat women still? Do you know many liberals? As a former liberal myself I still know a good number of liberals and we pretty much agree. Only thing different is as radicals we're more to take action quicker than liberals who calculate and whatnot. You should pick up the book "Christian fascists." In it the author talks about a guy who was a Jew who escaped Germany during Hitler and talked about how the liberals wanted to talk instead of fight. That's really the only major differences in my personal opinion and experiences.

Why do I care who you're for or not for? I really could give a damn. So please don't play this macho bullshit crap on me k? It doesn't work. Get over yourself hon. You aren't a Marxist god or whatever. Keep your holier than thou b.s. I didn't say Obama was or wasn't doing anything. I'm pointing out he isn't the only one. He's a fucking democrat so what do you expect?

So what were you expecting with Obama? Him to be the next Karl Marx? Again: he's a democrat! No shit sherlock.

I'm against corporate lobbyists as well. Your point?

Or he could go there and see for himself. Again with the psychic thing. Don't quit your day job. Stick to what you know and what's present or in the past. Not even he knows how things are going to be IF he becomes president. He hasn't won the nomination yet and that is still very much up in the air.

Or maybe he wants to start with Africa because of what the country means to him? His father is from Kenya after all and he still has family who lives there. So for all we know Africa could just be more important to him because of how personal it is for him. Plus he has said he would talk and try to have a relationship with other president's such as Hugo Chavez. I would love for him to work with Chavez and other leftist leaders of Latin/Central America to do a new plan of trade agreements. And as a democrat is it any surprise that he's for the free market? There are very few democrats who are for a fair market. One of them is Bryon Dorgan who has a good book out called "Take this job and ship it." He's a big supporter of fair trade. And as you said at least it's in the right direction about him and being against NAFTA/CAFTA. But than again even Harold Ford Jr was against it.

Psychic? Funny that you use this considering most liberals supporting Obama are so desperate for some sort of imaginary change that they believe Obama will be a "trojan horse". All evidence is to the contrary though. Whites are currently in a love affair with Obama and for good reasons. He rarely mentions race for the purpose of appeasing to whites, he plays into this as much as whites as a collective do.

What is his plan to counter the ethnic cleansing and privatization of New Orleans? The entire black social web of a major U.S. city is articifically torn to shreads and he never mentions it. This is actually occuring more slowly in every major American city and Obama has nothing to counter gentrification and displacement. The fragile black middle-class is being decimated by the subprime lending crisis that disproportionately targeted people of color. Blacks are on the verge of the largest loss of wealth in their modern history and Obama only wants a couple reformist caps to fix it! He refuses to even go into depth about issues facing the black community; not to mention the roles of white institutions.

White liberals are rallying around Obama as a status symbol for blacks because they can get rid of their guilt without actually making any fundamental change.

At the beginning I made it obvious that I was for no other candidate so pulling the hypocrisy of others to disguise Obama's will not work on me. If Obama talks about getting out of Iraq in public but behind private doors discusses raising troop levels to 100,000 its hypocrisy plain and simple. The least minimal requirement he could carry out in his foreign policy is unwavering opposition to an imperialist war of mass murder tipping on the scale of genocide.

Neoconservatives are not just supporting him but recieving spots as chief advisors to his foreign policy. Its not just neocons either, its liberal Cold War imperialists responsible for a multitude of atrocities expanding throughout several presidencies. I'm expecting a lot better "imperialist efficiency" of the current candidates; at least thats what they promise.

Not to mention Obama's long public crusade against corporate lobbying and "special interests". I guess a coalition of multinational corporations and elite foreign policy advisors will bring about Obama's campaign of change.

If anything is going to change in Obama's mind, this is one of the last, based on the zealously of his unwavering support for Israel.

He actually went against CAFTA which he deserves points for but he is as aggressive in support for "free markets" as any other neoliberal democrat. He just wanted to reform a couple provisions on CAFTA, not fundamentally oppose it and support an alternative. Notice he doesn't even discuss Central America in his plans for "expanding free markets", only Africa. In his mind, Central America has already been done so now its time for more.

SouthernBelle82

15th February 2008, 18:17

Which is true and a total shame.

Any candidate with a realistic chance of winning the presidency will hold positions leftists will find deplorable. Any candidate who holds leftist positions would be wise to hide them, and if they didn't they would face the full-on wrath of the media and the corporate giants, quickly becoming marginalized. If they refuse to be marginalized, and continue to win support, they would be stopped cold by superdelegates. If they managed to get past that obstacle, they would be stopped either through a completely fabricated media controversy, or through the actions of a "lone nut". That's just the nature of this "democratic" system. Progress will only be marginal, if it occurs at all.

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 18:33

1 reason not to support Obama: he's a Democrat, and they are a bourgeois party.

Bright Banana Beard

15th February 2008, 18:45

Still, I rather see Obama than Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

jacobin1949

15th February 2008, 19:03

According to the CPUSA, the USA is not a free market liberal capitalist economy, but a state-monopoly capitalist economy. So supporting progressive elements within the capitalists state, is the most reasonable action for Marxist-Leninist to take. In addition as long as issues like race and immigration and other forms of discrimination are used to divide the working class, there can never be any hope of progress. So supporting liberal capitalists in abolishing some aspects of discrimination is a wise policy.

Pawn Power

15th February 2008, 19:06

can we do one on Hillary as well?

here is a similar thing on both canidates, though it is largly from a liberal view: it is from this website http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/#samstuff

BARACK OBAMA

GOOD
Promises not to sign a trade bill without environmental and labor protections.
Voted against immunity for telecoms' illegal spying on Americans
Has inspired a lot of young and minority voters to get involved in politics
Helped fight for restoration of habeas corpus at Gitmo
Would end the corrupt, destructive Bush-Clinton dynasty
Favored cluster bomb ban in civilian areas
Opposes most individual mandates in healthcare
Has released personal financial information

BAD
Opposed filibuster efforts against nominated Supreme Couirt Justice Alioto
Called the late Paul Wellstone "something of a gadfly"
Voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill
Wrote that conservatives and Bill Clinton were right about welfare
Is willing to put rightwingers in his cabinet
Says "everything is on the table" with Social Security
Opposed efffort to censure Bush administration for illegal wiretapping
Voted to make John Negroponte the National Intelligence Director.
Voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain.
Won't rule out first strike nuclear attack on Iran
Received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006
Went to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont
Supports federally funded ethanol
Refuses to take a position on the anti-constitutional Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
Called Pakistan "the right battlefield ... in the war on terrorism" Threatened to invade Pakistan
Opposed putting heating fuel assistance for low income in stimulas bill
Sounds sort of like Tony Robbins
Uses various evangelical cons to win supporters
His policies in most areas have yet to be revealed
Voted against a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards
Has a developer buddy who just got indicted
Opposed the war as a state senator, less certain as a federal oneHILLARY CLINTON

GOOD
Supported putting heating fuel assistance for low income in stimulas bill

BAD
Didnt show up to vote against immunity for telecoms' illegal spying on Americans
Has failed to release personal financial information
Favors healthcare individual mandates that would help insurance companies and banks but not citizens
Would require reporters' metaphors to be approved by her communications director. Check David Shuster for details
Wrote critically in his books of the New Deal and the New Left while praising Bill Clinton
Has most number of foreign lobbyist contributors
Is even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain
Is most popular with K Street lobbyists
Is only First Lady to come under criminal investigation
Is running the dirtiest campaign
Has received most funds from oil industry
Has received most funds from health industry
Once almost got indicted
Has the most number of business partners(3)who went to prison
Got White House travel office head indicted on false grounds
Made a bunch of money on a highly suspicious cattle futures trade
Helped prepare legal papers for project later target in criminal probe
Had most number of fundraisers involved in criminal activities
Gave most number of evasive answers (250) to congressional inquiries
Was involved in a resort land scam
Submitted the largest false campaign finance report
Supported Bernie Kerick to be head of Homeland Security
Involved in rightwing religious group, the Fellowship
Had most number of fundraisers with criminal problems
Deliberately increased ethnic conflict in campaign
Opposed cluster bomb ban in civilian areasBOTH CLINTON AND OBAMA

Have similar voting records with Progressive Punch ranking Obama 19th and Clinton 24th in Senate

BAD
Have hawkish foreign policy advisors involved in past US misdeeds and failures
Support Israeli aggression and apartheid
Voted numerous times to continue funding the war
Support or won't oppose nuclear power
Have no meaningful economic programs
Support capital punishment
Support war on drugs
Support Real ID
Support No Child Left Behind
Supported crack-cocaine sentence disparity
Oppose single payer healthcare
Support PATRIOT Act
Have no clear plan to leave Iraq and Afghanistan

Ultra-Violence

15th February 2008, 19:32

There's one reason you need not to support Obama: he's a capitalist politician.

THANK YOU! HELL IS ANY BODY HERE? i just cant believe that people think Obama is actualy goana "change" shit! HIS SOLE PURPOSE IS TO DEMOBILIZE PEOPLE! for christ sakes i cant believe people on a revolutionary board are goana acutaly vote!:scared: or think obama is beter than hillary in any way!

Davie zepeda

15th February 2008, 19:43

WE don't know really the funny thing is that sando was democrat .Fidel was too lol we don't know what a person really is in tell they get power "I don't give a shit really" i don't support nor vote this "system" but to me the real enemy is the bankers!

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th February 2008, 03:43

..or the capitalists, which are exactly who Obama and Clinton represent.

I guess by saying "Fidel was a democrat" you're trying to say he was a supporter of bourgeois democracy? Maybe you should read some of the things he wrote as far back as his days as a candidate in the bourgeois elections. See the book "Revolutionary Struggle" for example.

Anyway, Fidel was transformed from his already radical beginnings in the class struggle, something which Obama has no part in (except as a tool of the capitalists in their war against workers).

R_P_A_S

16th February 2008, 18:39

Pawn Power

16th February 2008, 19:10

i appreciate the Obama and Clinton "Good and Bad" list and all. but some of those read like a 5th grader wrote them. and plus I would like to have sources to every single one of them. just like Geronimo Pratt(who started this thread)

Yeah, they are pretty bad.

The only other thing I could direct you to are more indepth articles. I guess you can then make a list if you want. The one article that the thread starter posted by the black agenda report on the health care issue is good. also you could check out Counter-Punch since they frequently have good critical peices on the canidates.

Davie zepeda

16th February 2008, 19:25

The only thing im saying is that inf act you got to try to work within the system the problem is not being corrupted by that very same system .
I was just saying all revolutionary's believe in the system at first in tell they realize how corrupt it is.

Geronimo Pratt

16th February 2008, 20:39

Here's the thing, I agree that we should not support Obama just for the fact that he is another capitalist politician. On the other hand, many of us who want to go and debate election-frenzy liberals would like some more firepower than that. This is for all the white "feel good" liberals who are hopping on the "black president bandwagon". Not to mention the Greens who think Obama will actually bring about some sort of reformist change. We want to prove he will just be another enthusiastic militarist and imperialist. Perhaps we could make some liberals become disillusioned with the electoral process in general when they find their options are severly limited. It's all strategy.

bobroberts

17th February 2008, 04:48

Anyway, Fidel was transformed from his already radical beginnings in the class struggle, something which Obama has no part in (except as a tool of the capitalists in their war against workers).

For what it's worth, Obama got his start in politics by organizing the poor, using and teaching Saul Alinsky methods.

SouthernBelle82

17th February 2008, 17:37

EwokUtopia

17th February 2008, 17:49

I dont support him. However, He is the candidate I least oppose (aside from Mike Gravel, but fat chance of him getting in). Honestly, you could take that list of things, switch race with gender, and have hill-dog. Hell, her policies are more vague, her ties with Israel stronger, and her husband was a douche in the office (The international interventions, not the hummer, that was just funny).

Also, at this point, best hope for the person with the most separation of Church and State. They are all Capitalists, but thats still a fuck of alot better than Theocratic Fascists.

Cryotank Screams

17th February 2008, 17:57

There's one reason you need not to support Obama: he's a capitalist politician.

Bingo! Which makes me wonder why a lot of RevLeft members are getting caught up in the '08 hoopla. :confused:

Kropotesta

17th February 2008, 18:13

who cares? government is government.

Goatse

17th February 2008, 18:49

Kropotesta

17th February 2008, 20:37

While I agree that they're all arseholes, Obama included, a few of your statements are a bit assumptive and since a boycott of the vote followed shortly by a socialist revolution is a bit much to hope for, it's probably fair to say Obama is the lesser of two evils.
assumptive? could please back this up? If you have problems with a something I post why don't you bring it up directly? we are here to debate after all.
when did I say it would lead to a socialist revolution? Sounds like you're making assumptions to me.
lesser of two evils maybe. however many revolutionaries beleive circumstances need to be more obviously restrained thus to prompt revolution, I take it that you don't agree with this stance? I am not saying I agree with it either mind you.

oujiQualm

17th February 2008, 22:02

One of the few dems to speak out EVEN A TEENSY WEENSY bit against the NSA Spy Sattelites-- which could easily be used to blackmail legislative opposition as were the J Edgar Hoover files of a 40% more innocent ( yes even though it wasnt Halloween J Edgar!) times-- not that its really necessary these day?-- was Il. Senior Sen Dick Durbin.

Who then criticized him from the right, thus ensuring that there would be still more silence from the Corporate Democrats? Why it was Obama.

The Corporate Media quickly rewarded their creation, by deeming Obama "Moderate" their name for the non- stop locomotive that moves only rightward, EVER rightward!

MT5678

17th February 2008, 23:37

You know, this is interesting: some dude called Paul Street (a Marxist) a racist because he opposed Obama.

His response: would you be racist to back William Monroe Trotter against the accomodationist Booker T. Washington?

But this is horrible. Obama is exploiting his mulatto status for votes. He once asked Wall Street dudes to "build a fairer, more just, America", and repeatedly makes appeals to the Horatio Algers myth.

PRC-UTE

17th February 2008, 23:40

He was also a community organizer. I just think he would be better than McCain who wants to be in Iraq for 100 more years. I agree with Sam Webb on this issue. We have to start somewhere and if that's with Obama than I'm willing to do that. We have to do what's best for the country. This election isn't about just our individual selves and our wants. Personally I think it's up to each individual revolutionary leftist to decide what to do. I don't think you're any less of a revolutionary if you vote for someone. You can counteract that either way with Congress/Senate elections too and other local elections.

I'll let Marx respond to you on the subject of elections:

Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one.

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers' candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

We not only stand against something, we stand for something.

R_P_A_S

18th February 2008, 00:14

I'll let Marx respond to you on the subject of elections:

source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

We not only stand against something, we stand for something.

thank you for posting this respond. fuck man. I wish i could randomly remember stuff like this.

PRC-UTE

18th February 2008, 00:23

thank you for posting this respond. fuck man. I wish i could randomly remember stuff like this.

I read it first in the Starry Plough and Cde. CDL brought it back to my attention not long ago.

SouthernBelle82

18th February 2008, 17:51

There can also at least be a chance to start going in the right direction and get the Constitution fully back. Also don't forget the Supreme Court. I think there's supposed to be some of them retiring within the next president's term. That's very important too. And yea I would like Mike Gravel too even though there's like maybe one thing I don't agree with him on.

I dont support him. However, He is the candidate I least oppose (aside from Mike Gravel, but fat chance of him getting in). Honestly, you could take that list of things, switch race with gender, and have hill-dog. Hell, her policies are more vague, her ties with Israel stronger, and her husband was a douche in the office (The international interventions, not the hummer, that was just funny).

Also, at this point, best hope for the person with the most separation of Church and State. They are all Capitalists, but thats still a fuck of alot better than Theocratic Fascists.

SouthernBelle82

18th February 2008, 17:53

While I see the view point and would generally agree these last seven years have changed so much. I'm more worried about getting the Constitution back and the Supreme Court. By not voting how can you change that?

I'll let Marx respond to you on the subject of elections:

source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

We not only stand against something, we stand for something.

PRC-UTE

18th February 2008, 17:58

While I see the view point and would generally agree these last seven years have changed so much. I'm more worried about getting the Constitution back and the Supreme Court. By not voting how can you change that?

Here's where we can't continue the discussion: your defence of liberalism shares no common ground with our position. We don't want to strengthen the state, we want to see it go down.

This a clash of values. we don't want the same thing.

SouthernBelle82

18th February 2008, 18:06

EwokUtopia

18th February 2008, 18:34

Here's where we can't continue the discussion: your defence of liberalism shares no common ground with our position. We don't want to strengthen the state, we want to see it go down.

This a clash of values. we don't want the same thing.

Do you actually see the state going down in the next two decades? That seems like wishful thinking to me. The American people are not going to produce any Leftist revolution anytime soon. Hell, many of them look at Obama as a Left Wing radical, and that says alot about their revolutionary capacity. Call me a defeatist or what you will, but right now, I am much more concerned with preventing the US from sliding to theocratic fascism than I am with overturning its capitalism. One is immediately possible, the other is not.

You can want whatever you want. Just try to keep it in a realistic and pragmatic framework. Do what you can when you can, and dont aim the cannon too high.

Miss Mindfuck.

18th February 2008, 19:45

I still can't believe Mike Huckabee won my state...

Anyhow. I really feel like a Democrat is gonna end up in the white house, simply because alot of normally conservative, ring-wingers are so fed up with this regressive shit that they're gonna vote Dem this go-round just to see if anything changes.
Though, I'm not super-excited about the prospect of either Clinton or Obama; but I guess I'd prefer it to John McCain, or worse...

Goatse

18th February 2008, 21:51

assumptive? could please back this up? If you have problems with a something I post why don't you bring it up directly? we are here to debate after all.

The first two points of the main post? They weren't backed up by anything really so it's fair to say they're assumptions.

when did I say it would lead to a socialist revolution? Sounds like you're making assumptions to me.

since when did I say that you said that it would lead to a socialist revolution? Stop judging me :mad: :(

lesser of two evils maybe. however many revolutionaries beleive circumstances need to be more obviously restrained thus to prompt revolution, I take it that you don't agree with this stance? I am not saying I agree with it either mind you.

All I'm saying is that we need to have a rational view on the world. Idealism won't get us anywhere and we can't just disregard everyone because they're not communist enough.

PRC-UTE

19th February 2008, 17:24

Uhm hon I'm talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. And hon in case you've missed it I'm not a liberal. Don't give me that bullshit. You are giving me bullshit and not answers to my question's. If you don't vote how are you going to give back the people their rights such as privacy? Either answer my question or move on. I'm not talking about strengthening the state I'm talking about strengthening the rights of the people. The fact you don't know the difference shows your own blind ignorance and your own blind following. Even socialist country's like Venezuela have a Supreme Court and a Constitution. Duh.

Calling you a liberal is not a political slur, it's a fact. You are a defender of liberalism, in the standard defintion of the word, not as a synonym for 'left wing of the democratic party' (as it is often used in the States). The USA is a liberal state- a representative (bourgeois) democracy with a market economy, and private ownership. It's constitution reflects the liberal ideas of private property and democratic rights.

There was nothing about my post that was ignorant, or rude. I'm pointing out that you want something we don't want. We're not interested in improving the existing state but establishing a new society.

There's no reason two people can't disagree and yet still maintain a respectful dialogue. Insults aren't called for here.

More importantly, if you want to protect democratic rights, the way to do it is to organise and put pressure on those at the top. Historically there is no correlation between voting for a certain wing of the ruling class party and protecting human rights. The "liberal" hero Kennedy committed ground troops to Vietnam; the right wng villain Nixon withdrew them. The ruling class acts how it must when it is under pressure from mass movements and even resistance armies, not because a politician is 'good' or 'bad'. That illusion should be put to rest once and for all.

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 18:51

No hon. It's called REALITY. Do you know what that is? I'm not talking about private property hon. I'm talking about privacy and basic human rights. Especially with the ultra rightwing wanting to ban abortion, birth control pills, no national health care system of any kind, horrible education etc. While you're sitting whining and *****ing about how this person or that person ISN'T EXACTLY LIKE YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS I'm here wanting to work with others and wanting to actually make positive changes. If you believe the United States is ever going to become a communist utopia you don't deserve to be taken seriously. We all have our idealism and our beliefs but we also have a thing called REALITY. Maybe you should look into that before you bullshit with other people because they don't believe or think exactly like you. Me wanting to not have the FBI or CIA read my Emails doesn't mean I'm defending a liberal bourgeois state. It means I want my privacy and I don't want some rightwing holier than thou man making decisions on behalf of my body. I want to have children in the future and I want them to have the best education they can get so they can be competitive in the work force and follow their own ideals and beliefs.

Give me a break on you preaching about insults. You have NO right to talk with your holier than thou bullshit. Get over it. So don't bullshit me and I won't bullshit you. As someone else said just because I don't think exactly like you doesn't make me any less of a communist. When you figure that out THEN you can preach with your "let's not do this or that" bull.

Calling you a liberal is not a political slur, it's a fact. You are a defender of liberalism, in the standard defintion of the word, not as a synonym for 'left wing of the democratic party' (as it is often used in the States). The USA is a liberal state- a representative (bourgeois) democracy with a market economy, and private ownership. It's constitution reflects the liberal ideas of private property and democratic rights.

There was nothing about my post that was ignorant, or rude. I'm pointing out that you want something we don't want. We're not interested in improving the existing state but establishing a new society.

There's no reason two people can't disagree and yet still maintain a respectful dialogue. Insults aren't called for here.

More importantly, if you want to protect democratic rights, the way to do it is to organise and put pressure on those at the top. Historically there is no correlation between voting for a certain wing of the ruling class party and protecting human rights. The "liberal" hero Kennedy committed ground troops to Vietnam; the right wng villain Nixon withdrew them. The ruling class acts how it must when it is under pressure from mass movements and even resistance armies, not because a politician is 'good' or 'bad'. That illusion should be put to rest once and for all.

Ultra-Violence

19th February 2008, 19:10

southern bell i like your a good person and i share the same beliefs about taking back the supreme court defendin the right to abortion etc... BUT heres the deal DEMOCRACY ONLY EXIST IN TEXT BOOKS! our goverment is so corrupt to the core theirs no way to salvage it. the media our senators their all bought up by corparations thiers no use these elections dont mean anything BUT TO Demobilze people thats their sole purpose lets go back a bit Colored people didnt get "Eqaul rights" as white people by the ballot. NO they had to go out in the streets and DEMAND IT! people were killed hurt etc... For equal rights. Vietnam didnt end because of the ballot.NO it was becuase people wouldnt stand for it and went to the streets again!. Unions just dindt pop out of nowhere PEOPLE had to go to street AND DIE! for unions. You see the common demonator? when people get to the streets is only WHEN change happens. Obama and Hillary are like the ANIT-mobilizatio crew Who's SOLE PURPOSE is to demobilize people to keep them from giong to the streets look at their campaings their saying their goana end the war etc.....WHEN THIER WORKING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE AS G.W! and im in reality i see reality trust me i live it every day and im not saying revolution is goana come tommorow or next year either. but like some one said erlier WE STAND FOR SOMETHING!

PRC-UTE

19th February 2008, 19:21

No hon. It's called REALITY. Do you know what that is? I'm not talking about private property hon. I'm talking about privacy and basic human rights. Especially with the ultra rightwing wanting to ban abortion, birth control pills, no national health care system of any kind, horrible education etc. While you're sitting whining and *****ing about how this person or that person ISN'T EXACTLY LIKE YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS I'm here wanting to work with others and wanting to actually make positive changes. If you believe the United States is ever going to become a communist utopia you don't deserve to be taken seriously. We all have our idealism and our beliefs but we also have a thing called REALITY. Maybe you should look into that before you bullshit with other people because they don't believe or think exactly like you. Me wanting to not have the FBI or CIA read my Emails doesn't mean I'm defending a liberal bourgeois state. It means I want my privacy and I don't want some rightwing holier than thou man making decisions on behalf of my body. I want to have children in the future and I want them to have the best education they can get so they can be competitive in the work force and follow their own ideals and beliefs.

Give me a break on you preaching about insults. You have NO right to talk with your holier than thou bullshit. Get over it. So don't bullshit me and I won't bullshit you. As someone else said just because I don't think exactly like you doesn't make me any less of a communist. When you figure that out THEN you can preach with your "let's not do this or that" bull.

I'd appreciate it if you don't call me 'hon', it sounds condescending in this context. I only prefer to hear my gf call me that. :)

Anyway, my previous post quoting Marx's position on elections really answers what you're saying well:

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers' candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

PS- dont think I am self-righteous or holier than thou, but that doesn't matter: what matters is if I'm correct or not. Play the ball, not the person...

Led Zeppelin

19th February 2008, 19:30

While you're sitting whining and *****ing about how this person or that person ISN'T EXACTLY LIKE YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS I'm here wanting to work with others and wanting to actually make positive changes.

How do you know he does not engage in any activity and just "sits there whining and *****ing"?

If you believe the United States is ever going to become a communist utopia you don't deserve to be taken seriously. We all have our idealism and our beliefs but we also have a thing called REALITY.

The reality is that if the US (or the world in general) does not become communist it will resort to barbarism and probably wipe out humanity.

Capitalism as an economic system is not sustainable. Two world wars, massive environmental damage, huge waste of resources, what more do you need before this reality dawns on you?

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 19:35

I believe it was Dennis Kucinich's wife not too long ago who echoed what you said and that we have a fake democracy and I do agree there because we only have two parties in power and if we as a country think there's only two ideals in the country that's just ridiculous. Which is why I'm for voting in people who will hold up ideals and beliefs and I always try to vote for someone who is as close to what I believe as possible. As I said I do have my own idealism but I also know reality and know what I have to work with. That's why we have to get rid of corporate power and hold and start where we can such as with radio airwaves and press and electing politicians who don't take any corporate money like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and others out there like them. We also have to get politicians to not think like capitalists but as people who are supposed to protect the Constitution and work for the people who elected them and help the workers. Our current leaders aren't listening to us with marches or whatnot. Before George Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 the world held the largest world march ever and did that mean anything? No. So what else do we have? We have the right to vote so why not use it to our own advantage? We also have to encourage your average person to run for office and keep pressure on them etc.

southern bell i like your a good person and i share the same beliefs about taking back the supreme court defendin the right to abortion etc... BUT heres the deal DEMOCRACY ONLY EXIST IN TEXT BOOKS! our goverment is so corrupt to the core theirs no way to salvage it. the media our senators their all bought up by corparations thiers no use these elections dont mean anything BUT TO Demobilze people thats their sole purpose lets go back a bit Colored people didnt get "Eqaul rights" as white people by the ballot. NO they had to go out in the streets and DEMAND IT! people were killed hurt etc... For equal rights. Vietnam didnt end because of the ballot.NO it was becuase people wouldnt stand for it and went to the streets again!. Unions just dindt pop out of nowhere PEOPLE had to go to street AND DIE! for unions. You see the common demonator? when people get to the streets is only WHEN change happens. Obama and Hillary are like the ANIT-mobilizatio crew Who's SOLE PURPOSE is to demobilize people to keep them from giong to the streets look at their campaings their saying their goana end the war etc.....WHEN THIER WORKING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE AS G.W! and im in reality i see reality trust me i live it every day and im not saying revolution is goana come tommorow or next year either. but like some one said erlier WE STAND FOR SOMETHING!

PRC-UTE

19th February 2008, 19:41

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 19:42

How do I know? Well he's here isn't he? I'm doing the same thing. I'm sitting here and *****ing and whining myself but I'm not judging other people and saying they're not as left or whatever. Would you like it if I was so judgmental of you and said you weren't really this or that because you didn't believe exactly like me? It's bullshit.

And you think communists don't wipe out humanity as well? C'mon now let's be real here. Now ideally you're correct but we're all humans/mortals. And hon who is talking about capitalism? I'm not. I'm talking about basic human rights such as privacy and the right to my own body.

How do you know he does not engage in any activity and just "sits there whining and *****ing"?

The reality is that if the US (or the world in general) does not become communist it will resort to barbarism and probably wipe out humanity.

Capitalism as an economic system is not sustainable. Two world wars, massive environmental damage, huge waste of resources, what more do you need before this reality dawns on you?

PRC-UTE

19th February 2008, 19:45

How do I know? Well he's here isn't he? I'm doing the same thing. I'm sitting here and *****ing and whining myself but I'm not judging other people and saying they're not as left or whatever. Would you like it if I was so judgmental of you and said you weren't really this or that because you didn't believe exactly like me? It's bullshit.

It's not really *****ing and whining. It's not bullshit either: it's just honesty. It's a discussion forum, and it's not too interesting if we agree all the time.

I'm actually not as young as you probably assume I am, and I've actually been active enough in "real life" to almost reach the point of burn out. I had to scale back a bit so that I wouldn't quit altogether, I also resigned from being a mod on this forum cos I jsut don't have the time to check on it eveyday.

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 19:46

When you stop being condescending yourself than I will. Until then nope. And again I don't tell you how to talk and act so don't bullshit around with me either. So once again you've proven my point. If someone doesn't agree exactly with everything you do than they can't possible be as much as a communist as you. THAT is the PURE definition of holier than thou. :rolleyes: This "I'm humble" act you're trying to portray isn't fooling me. You've once again proven that with this pathetic attempt. You still haven't offered any answers whatsoever about how the people get their rights back such as the right to your own body and the right to a decent education and the right for a decent wage and privacy in your own home.

I'd appreciate it if you don't call me 'hon', it sounds condescending in this context. I only prefer to hear my gf call me that. :)

Anyway, my previous post quoting Marx's position on elections really answers what you're saying well:

PS- dont think I am self-righteous or holier than thou, but that doesn't matter: what matters is if I'm correct or not. Play the ball, not the person...

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 19:49

And this coming from the person who was just *****ing about me not agreeing with everything you believe in? Please! And it is bullshit. It's nothing close to honesty. If you were being honest you wouldn't be *****ing about me not agreeing with you on everything and saying I have to be liberal or this or that when in fact I'm not. Look up the word former before you reply to this or any of my other messages. Leave your holier than thou bull for someone else. And I care you're a former mod why?

It's not really *****ing and whining. It's not bullshit either: it's just honesty. It's a discussion forum, and it's not too interesting if we agree all the time.

I'm actually not as young as you probably assume I am, and I've actually been active enough in "real life" to almost reach the point of burn out. I had to scale back a bit so that I wouldn't quit altogether, I also resigned from being a mod on this forum cos I jsut don't have the time to check on it eveyday.

PRC-UTE

19th February 2008, 19:51

This "I'm humble" act you're trying to portray isn't fooling me. You've once again proven that with this pathetic attempt. You still haven't offered any answers whatsoever about how the people get their rights back such as the right to your own body and the right to a decent education and the right for a decent wage and privacy in your own home.

here's what I posted earlier, maybe you didn't see it:

The workers need to organise themselves and begin to constitute themselves as the next ruling class, even if that means taking the first, most tepid steps forward.

More importantly, if you want to protect democratic rights, the way to do it is to organise and put pressure on those at the top. Historically there is no correlation between voting for a certain wing of the ruling class party and protecting human rights. The "liberal" hero Kennedy committed ground troops to Vietnam; the right wng villain Nixon withdrew them. The ruling class acts how it must when it is under pressure from mass movements and even resistance armies, not because a politician is 'good' or 'bad'. That illusion should be put to rest once and for all.

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 19:57

And that does what to get back the rights placed in the Constitution such as the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments?

here's what I posted earlier, maybe you didn't see it:

SouthernBelle82

19th February 2008, 19:59

Oh and on your second comment you do that by having reps in the House and Senate by listening to the people. If you have people there who could give a damn about the public than what does it do? Nothing. You can't get anything done nationally without the House and Senate because of our rules here.

here's what I posted earlier, maybe you didn't see it:

Lector Malibu

19th February 2008, 20:07

Still, I rather see Obama than Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

Well, The lesser of evils are still evil ;)

SouthernBelle82

20th February 2008, 00:34

But what are you supposed to do when there aren't enough people to support a revolution? It's just getting back the Constitution and Supreme Court is very important to me and have longer effects on the country than who's president for four or eight years and you can get more people to get into the House/Senate who share your ideals. Having a president here in the States who have our ideals here isn't going to be happening anytime soon. :(

Well, The lesser of evils are still evil ;)

Ultra-Violence

20th February 2008, 16:33

YSR

20th February 2008, 17:10

The perfect match-up: Clinton vs. McCain. Obama and Huckabee both have something that makes them seem different from other capitalist politicians. The former is charismatic, young, and black, the latter is evangelical and down-homey. Clinton and McCain are basically the same person though. No match-up will better illustrate to U.S. workers that they have no real choice.

SouthernBelle82

20th February 2008, 20:52

Well the only reason really why I'd vote for president is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan asap. Besides that and foreign relationships it's the House and/or Senate that does the real work because of how our system is set up with checks and balances and all that. We'd have a better chance with them than with the presidency and of course local city councils and whatnot. Another reason again is the Supreme Court. Who do you want making decisions? What type of judges? Do you want more like Sam Alito? I sure as hell don't!

But Southern bell heres the deal those Protest werent violent and secondly it wasnt something that was goana divide the country and severly Bring presure to the ruling class but i do agree we should fight for local elections that we acutaly have some say in BUT as far as presidential thiers no point

PRC-UTE

21st February 2008, 00:59

Well the only reason really why I'd vote for president is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan asap. Besides that and foreign relationships it's the House and/or Senate that does the real work because of how our system is set up with checks and balances and all that. We'd have a better chance with them than with the presidency and of course local city councils and whatnot. Another reason again is the Supreme Court. Who do you want making decisions? What type of judges? Do you want more like Sam Alito? I sure as hell don't!

The assumption here is that selecting better politicians will end or prevent war and abuse, that aggression is an abberation and not the way capitalism has to operate. This is demonstratably incorrect. Imperialism is a stage of development, not a policy created by a handful of political leaders.

Lector Malibu

21st February 2008, 01:47

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 01:51

That's why you elect anti-imperialist politicians. Duh. Even Cuba has elections. :rolleyes:

The assumption here is that selecting better politicians will end or prevent war and abuse, that aggression is an abberation and not the way capitalism has to operate. This is demonstratably incorrect. Imperialism is a stage of development, not a policy created by a handful of political leaders.

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 01:53

And without enough people to do a revolution and you not getting up and doing SOMETHING you're not a part of the solution either.

I guess if I can't be part of the the solution I don't become part of the problem...

Lector Malibu

21st February 2008, 02:02

And without enough people to do a revolution and you not getting up and doing SOMETHING you're not a part of the solution either.

No, What I'm saying is I don't settle. I think you miss understood my post.

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 02:23

Lector Malibu

21st February 2008, 02:31

Don't insult me. You're not doing ANYTHING. There's no revolution and not enough people to make the U.S. a communist country. I'm not going to sit on my ass and let people keep doing what's been going on and having the ultra-right destroy this country.

I didn't insult you nor do I understand why you took it that way. I don't even know you. I just joined this board yesterday. If anyone's being rude it's you. You don't know me or what I do period. What I was trying to say is that I'm not gonna put stock in a candidate just because there the lesser of the evils , I mean really, why? If they don't appear to be part of the solution either how does that help?

Kitskits

21st February 2008, 04:59

Question for the inhabitants of 'america'

Are there racist points of the current constitution of 'civilized' 'america'? Thank you.

ComradeR

21st February 2008, 07:05

Well the only reason really why I'd vote for president is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan asap. Besides that and foreign relationships it's the House and/or Senate that does the real work because of how our system is set up with checks and balances and all that. We'd have a better chance with them than with the presidency and of course local city councils and whatnot. Another reason again is the Supreme Court. Who do you want making decisions? What type of judges? Do you want more like Sam Alito? I sure as hell don't!
If I may jump in here, the the only way the bourgeoisie will withdraw from an imperial war is if they are threatened from below (such as in Vietnam) and not by who is elected in. Remember one of the big reasons Nixon was elected was because of his promises to end the Vietnam war. It will be the same now regardless who is elected. As long as it is in their interests the bourgeoisie will continue their wars. Our efforts are better spent organizing and discussing with our fellow workers to try and spread class conscience rather then participating in the farce that is bourgeois "democracy".

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 18:36

You insulted me by saying I took something the wrong way. This is an internet message board. People take things how YOU present them and vice versa. Make YOURSELF clear. And again you just proved my point again. You're not a part of any type of solution you're doing nothing. You just proved my point for me. And by doing nothing you allow the ultra rightwing to take over. How's that working out for you? Oh and I don't give a damn when you joined the board. That doesn't mean anything. I didn't get any special treatment when I first joined the board.

I didn't insult you nor do I understand why you took it that way. I don't even know you. I just joined this board yesterday. If anyone's being rude it's you. You don't know me or what I do period. What I was trying to say is that I'm not gonna put stock in a candidate just because there the lesser of the evils , I mean really, why? If they don't appear to be part of the solution either how does that help?

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 18:38

What does that have to do with the topic?

Question for the inhabitants of 'america'

Are there racist points of the current constitution of 'civilized' 'america'? Thank you.

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 18:40

And if you don't elect someone who is willing to at least listen to the people and cares what they say it means nothing. The only other way to get out of a situation like Vietnam or Iraq when the president doesn't listen is to elect enough members of Congress and the Senate who will. So either way you're going to have to work with the top because of how our system is set up. American government 101 people.

If I may jump in here, the the only way the bourgeoisie will withdraw from an imperial war is if they are threatened from below (such as in Vietnam) and not by who is elected in. Remember one of the big reasons Nixon was elected was because of his promises to end the Vietnam war. It will be the same now regardless who is elected. As long as it is in their interests the bourgeoisie will continue their wars. Our efforts are better spent organizing and discussing with our fellow workers to try and spread class conscience rather then participating in the farce that is bourgeois "democracy".

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 18:43

I also wanted to add in agreement with your last point. I think now is a great opportunity for organizing and discussing with workers and your average citizen about this. People are willing to be more open minded than if we were having an economy where it was going better or seemed to be going better. That's why I think too it's important we elect people who are as close as possible to our ideals especially locally, with the state level and federally. The more people who are in power with that line of thinking the better. That's why you have to run candidates and vote. Not voting doesn't do anything because of how our system is set up.

If I may jump in here, the the only way the bourgeoisie will withdraw from an imperial war is if they are threatened from below (such as in Vietnam) and not by who is elected in. Remember one of the big reasons Nixon was elected was because of his promises to end the Vietnam war. It will be the same now regardless who is elected. As long as it is in their interests the bourgeoisie will continue their wars. Our efforts are better spent organizing and discussing with our fellow workers to try and spread class conscience rather then participating in the farce that is bourgeois "democracy".

SouthernBelle82

21st February 2008, 18:46

I also wanted to add you don't have to know someone to insult them. I've been told for many years now that I'm not educated enough in political issues by SOMEONE every where I go whether in actual life or the internet and I get sick of it so when someone tells me what you did that's my first reaction. Now if you weren't meaning to be that way than I apologize.

I didn't insult you nor do I understand why you took it that way. I don't even know you. I just joined this board yesterday. If anyone's being rude it's you. You don't know me or what I do period. What I was trying to say is that I'm not gonna put stock in a candidate just because there the lesser of the evils , I mean really, why? If they don't appear to be part of the solution either how does that help?

Lector Malibu

21st February 2008, 19:11

You insulted me by saying I took something the wrong way. This is an internet message board. People take things how YOU present them and vice versa. Make YOURSELF clear. And again you just proved my point again. You're not a part of any type of solution you're doing nothing. You just proved my point for me. And by doing nothing you allow the ultra rightwing to take over. How's that working out for you? Oh and I don't give a damn when you joined the board. That doesn't mean anything. I didn't get any special treatment when I first joined the board.

What are you talking about? I said I think you took my post the wrong way . That in no way shape or form is in insult. I also said that I didn't know you not to get special treatment but to say that I had no reason to insult you . I'm not gonna vote for a capitalist slamjacker just because you think their the better choice. Your right that's doing nothing to FURTHER AID THE PROBLEM!!!! I accept your apology though. :lol:

PRC-UTE

21st February 2008, 19:37

That's why you elect anti-imperialist politicians. Duh. Even Cuba has elections. :rolleyes:

Cuba had to have a revolution to put anti-imperialist political leaders in power, though.

Pawn Power

21st February 2008, 21:05

i appreciate the Obama and Clinton "Good and Bad" list and all. but some of those read like a 5th grader wrote them. and plus I would like to have sources to every single one of them. just like Geronimo Pratt(who started this thread)

chech this out: http://www.indypendent.org/2008/02/04/the-indy%e2%80%99s-guide-to-the-primaries/

SouthernBelle82

22nd February 2008, 00:01

Accept my apology? For what? I'm not apologizing anything. Uh hon I said by you not voting and doing something to make changes in this country whether it's for president or the House/Senate elections you're not doing anything to move this country forward or to change how things are going. Again I ask you: how's the ultra rightwing being in control working out for you? Further aid the problem? You mean by not fighting the rightwing? Yeah that really is working out alright (sarcasm). :rolleyes: And about being insulted I'm not going to repeat myself again about that. Go back to the previous post. I think you know how to read and comprehend well enough to get it.

What are you talking about? I said I think you took my post the wrong way . That in no way shape or form is in insult. I also said that I didn't know you not to get special treatment but to say that I had no reason to insult you . I'm not gonna vote for a capitalist slamjacker just because you think their the better choice. Your right that's doing nothing to FURTHER AID THE PROBLEM!!!! I accept your apology though. :lol:

SouthernBelle82

22nd February 2008, 00:03

And the people for a revolution is where exactly? Oh right they're all with Obama. :rolleyes: We live in a capitalistic country. Even with the national health care debate going on there's still capitalism involved. If you think capitalism is going away in THIS country here in the States you're kidding yourself.

Cuba had to have a revolution to put anti-imperialist political leaders in power, though.

Lector Malibu

22nd February 2008, 06:19

Accept my apology? For what? I'm not apologizing anything.

Now if you weren't meaning to be that way than I apologize.

I was referring to that apology . That's your post in the quote above

Uh hon I said by you not voting and doing something to make changes in this country whether it's for president or the House/Senate elections you're not doing anything to move this country forward or to change how things are going. Okay, here's what all say to that. I'm not interested and propelling the capital beast forward. I have no desire too. I'm not a fan of capitalistic American imperialism. I'm pretty sure there will never be an un-capitalistic imperialistic American beast at this point. Yeah I hear what your saying about just not handing the country over to the ultra right wing neo con slamjackers . I also can't really speak to highly of the more left leaning folks . It's all pretty bad imo. I can't vote for a system I don't support

Again I ask you: how's the ultra rightwing being in control working out for you? Do you think by voting for whoever is gonna turn the tide in this country? I mean I hear you where your saying one should vote to prevent some rightwing neocon whatever in office I'm saying were still gonna have problems. That's all.

Further aid the problem? You mean by not fighting the rightwing?Yeah that really is working out alright (sarcasm). :rolleyes: So if I march on down to the polling place and put my vote in for Mr Obama I will have staved off the right wing and the battle will be won and America will take it's rightful place as the magical land of gum drops and chocolate cake?? Is that what your saying? If I vote it might be just to have a black man in office, that is revolutionary to America but really I haven't got much vested in America at all .

Sankofa

22nd February 2008, 06:40

If I vote it might be just to have a black man in office, that is revolutionary to America but really I haven't got much vested in America at all .

There isn't anything revolutionary about a black president. The system is unchanged no matter who's president; white/black, republican/democrat.

I don't see why everyone is rallying around him like he's some kind of great change for the United States. In office, Obama will be another house nigger uncle tom in Washington (joining his counterparts Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell) that answers to the same people that Bush does, period.

That's the only reason you need not to vote for Obama, or any other cappie running for this bullshit election.

Lector Malibu

22nd February 2008, 06:56

There isn't anything revolutionary about a black president. The system is unchanged no matter who's president; white/black, republican/democrat.

I don't see why everyone is rallying around him like he's some kind of great change for the United States. In office, Obama will be another house nigger uncle tom in Washington (joining his counterparts Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell) that answers to the same people that Bush does, period.

That's the only reason you need not to vote for Obama, or any other cappie running for this bullshit election.

Yonkers yeah I hear ya man especially about the country not changing one bit . This is all just show and tell time .

RNK

22nd February 2008, 07:14

It's sad that even today some who call themselves "leftists" do not recognize the futility of the bourgeois democratic system and its complete disconnection from the people. I think anyone who supports a bourgeois politician and calls for people to vote for them should be restricted. While I understand that in a left-lacking political system like that of the United States it is easy for some to be easily caught by the glittery faux pas leftism of a politician like Obama, it is no excuse to start rallying for agents of the bourgeoisie.

He is not revolutionary. Plain and simple. If anything, his coming to power will mark a setback for leftists, as it will placate many into believing that they've gotten what they wanted and that there's no point in struggling further.

dickson14

22nd February 2008, 13:36

A democrat in the White House is like having dog droppings for dinner every night instead of cyanide. Both are capitalists and supporters of the zionist occupation of Palestine and will not trial Bush for his crimes or launch a real investigation of 9/11.

SouthernBelle82

22nd February 2008, 16:36

And they still have elections with people who VOTE in them. Sitting home and doing nothing with not supporting potential allies no matter who it is at what level doesn't move anything forward.

Cuba had to have a revolution to put anti-imperialist political leaders in power, though.

SouthernBelle82

22nd February 2008, 16:45

Oh that apology. I thought you were talking about the points.

The capital beast isn't everything. There are other issues that are just as important. What about getting out of Iraq and Afghainstan? How are you going to do that? What about stopping corporations from sending jobs over seas? What about ending NAFTA/CAFTA? There's SO much with this election whether national or other wise.

While I see where you're coming from I just disagree. There's a lot I do disagree with democrats on especially economics and foreign affairs and whatnot but domestically I just think we have to work together to get anything done. I guess I'm more in agreement with Sam Webb of CPUSA on this issue. Obama is way more conservative than me but he'd be better than McCain who would want to be in Iraq for another 100 years.

Where did I say there is or isn't going to be problems? There will ALWAYS be problems as long as there is freewill. Are we going to have a patriarchy next? Sorry but I don't think so. Now we can try to limit the problems of society but it's never going to fully go away even with patriarchy.

Don't be condescending. No where did I say any of that. That's all YOU. Take that crap to someone else. I'm not even going to bother to reply to t besides this.

I was referring to that apology . That's your post in the quote above

Okay, here's what all say to that. I'm not interested and propelling the capital beast forward. I have no desire too. I'm not a fan of capitalistic American imperialism. I'm pretty sure there will never be an un-capitalistic imperialistic American beast at this point. Yeah I hear what your saying about just not handing the country over to the ultra right wing neo con slamjackers . I also can't really speak to highly of the more left leaning folks . It's all pretty bad imo. I can't vote for a system I don't support

Do you think by voting for whoever is gonna turn the tide in this country? I mean I hear you where your saying one should vote to prevent some rightwing neocon whatever in office I'm saying were still gonna have problems. That's all.

So if I march on down to the polling place and put my vote in for Mr Obama I will have staved off the right wing and the battle will be won and America will take it's rightful place as the magical land of gum drops and chocolate cake?? Is that what your saying? If I vote it might be just to have a black man in office, that is revolutionary to America but really I haven't got much vested in America at all .

SouthernBelle82

22nd February 2008, 16:48

Wow so you're a psychic? Amazing! Can you tell me what grade I'll make on my next paper?

There isn't anything revolutionary about a black president. The system is unchanged no matter who's president; white/black, republican/democrat.

I don't see why everyone is rallying around him like he's some kind of great change for the United States. In office, Obama will be another house nigger uncle tom in Washington (joining his counterparts Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell) that answers to the same people that Bush does, period.

That's the only reason you need not to vote for Obama, or any other cappie running for this bullshit election.

Sankofa

22nd February 2008, 17:39

Wow so you're a psychic? Amazing! Can you tell me what grade I'll make on my next paper?

I don't have to have ESP to know what Obama will (or won't do rather) his people or to change the country for that matter. Any half wit can see that. You really think Obama can change 500 years of institutionalized white racism in 4 years? Think he'll stop imperialism and exploitation?

Being Black doesn't make you revolutionary. We've had two "Toms" already as Secretary of State which accomplished virtually nothing. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

Genosse Kotze

22nd February 2008, 18:09

I don't like him either but one thing's certain: I DO NOT WANT HIM TO GET ASSASSINATED!!!!

Can you imagine what the aftermath would be like if some wack-job klansman with a rifle decides to put one between his eyes??

The way those pompus, cable news loud mouths are fauning over him now...if he gets assassinated they'll blow him up into something he SOOOO isn't! Like a modern day MLK--but this time the establishment's. He's a fuck in evey way shape and form and all this nonesense about him being "the new hope", "candidate of change" crap will transform his memory into something so fraudulent I'll simply have to vomit.

Sankofa

22nd February 2008, 18:16

Lector Malibu

22nd February 2008, 18:31

Oh, yeah. I don't like Obama politically but wouldn't enjoy seeing him get assasinated.

I'm sure Neo-Nazi skin heads are already talking about doing something if he actually does get elected. I wonder what those fucks over at Stormfront have to say about him...

I think your right on the money there. The first thing that sprang to mind when people compared him to Kennedy was that like Kennedy he was gonna be assasinated. Whether it was gonna be by the Neo Nazi contingent or the Klan or just some bigoted hateful bastard.

I'm not sure what Stormfront has to say , but I've already heard ridiculous things like he's a Muslim who swears by the Koran and turns his back to the flag yada, yada,

Lector Malibu

22nd February 2008, 21:01

Being Black doesn't make you revolutionary. We've had two "Toms" already as Secretary of State which accomplished virtually nothing. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

I need to say something. When I made the remark about havening a black man in office would be revolutionary I was in no way shape or form suggesting that it would inspire something revolutionary or be the catalyst to spark the revolution. I should have used better terminology. America has never had a black president. My remark should have indicated the historical significance to that. That's what I was trying to point out.

Sankofa

22nd February 2008, 22:46

No worries, that post was just a response to SouthernBelle82.

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 01:10

One thing I worry about is people getting their hopes up too high and becoming disillusioned with the political process and not wanting to vote in the future or be involved in some way with their government and when that happens the ultra rightwing gets control and we'll be back to where we are now. But yea Obama isn't an MLK or Kennedy or anything like that.

I don't like him either but one thing's certain: I DO NOT WANT HIM TO GET ASSASSINATED!!!!

Can you imagine what the aftermath would be like if some wack-job klansman with a rifle decides to put one between his eyes??

The way those pompus, cable news loud mouths are fauning over him now...if he gets assassinated they'll blow him up into something he SOOOO isn't! Like a modern day MLK--but this time the establishment's. He's a fuck in evey way shape and form and all this nonesense about him being "the new hope", "candidate of change" crap will transform his memory into something so fraudulent I'll simply have to vomit.

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 01:17

You really do have no clue. You can't possibly know what he will do. You might can have an IDEA but that's it. Sometimes people go into office and they have things happen to where they end up doing their policies a 180 from what they want to do. I don't think Obama can change much of anything really because things have been so fucked up from Bush and other republicans and democratic enablers like the Clinton's and others. And no I don't think Obama will change again much of anything but he can at least start it and we can at least keep the ultra rightwing and neocons from ever getting power again. If Obama is the first step then so be it. Same with Hillary. Of course they're still capitalist and have that mindset so why do you think I think he's revolutionary? I have never said he is. In fact in other threads I even agree he isn't and he's just a moderate populist now taking over John Edwards's role. I find it really disgusting people here using racist terms while talking about others and their racist problems. I think you should worry about your own racist problems before you get holier than thou. The fact you're still using these terms and find them acceptable is disgusting. You don't deserve to be taken seriously talking about racism. You're still a racist yourself.

I don't have to have ESP to know what Obama will (or won't do rather) his people or to change the country for that matter. Any half wit can see that. You really think Obama can change 500 years of institutionalized white racism in 4 years? Think he'll stop imperialism and exploitation?

Being Black doesn't make you revolutionary. We've had two "Toms" already as Secretary of State which accomplished virtually nothing. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 01:21

Yeah it's all ridiculous crap. And with the flag and his whole ordeal he's the only one actually following the flag rules which is quite humerous. Hopefully Obama does have good security. I believe he and Hillary get secret service.

I think your right on the money there. The first thing that sprang to mind when people compared him to Kennedy was that like Kennedy he was gonna be assasinated. Whether it was gonna be by the Neo Nazi contingent or the Klan or just some bigoted hateful bastard.

I'm not sure what Stormfront has to say , but I've already heard ridiculous things like he's a Muslim who swears by the Koran and turns his back to the flag yada, yada,

Sankofa

23rd February 2008, 03:10

And no I don't think Obama will change again much of anything but he can at least start it and we can at least keep the ultra rightwing and neocons from ever getting power again. If Obama is the first step then so be it. Same with Hillary. Of course they're still capitalist and have that mindset so why do you think I think he's revolutionary? I have never said he is. In fact in other threads I even agree he isn't and he's just a moderate populist now taking over John Edwards's role.

You talk about the Neo-Cons and Ultra-Right conservatives as if they and the Democrats were two seperate entities. What I and others are trying to point out is that these politicians are the same thing. No matter which political party has been in office, America's policies go unchanged.

Don't be fooled because the Democrats seem radical or "liberal" compared to the Republicans. Democrats didn't stop America's genocide on people of color, Democrats have overthrown soeverign, democratically elected governments for personal gain, Democrats support Israel's holocaust against the Arabs.

I find it really disgusting people here using racist terms while talking about others and their racist problems. I think you should worry about your own racist problems before you get holier than thou. The fact you're still using these terms and find them acceptable is disgusting. You don't deserve to be taken seriously talking about racism. You're still a racist yourself.

Er...I know this sounds a little cliché and there's no graceful way to point out this fact without sounding arrogant, but I'm Black, and therefore your charges of racism are baseless. They may sound a little harsh to the ear, but these are terms, descendant from slavery, are simply ways for the Blacks and other dark skinned people to point out others who are submissive to Whites and can't even relate to their own people, much less act in their own interests.

It's a historical fact that the CIA has murdered, under-minded, and overthrew progressive Black leaders and replaced them with "safe" puppets of their choosing. The government didn't waste all that time and money repeatedly disinfranchising us to let one guy come and change anything. So, to say it in what Fred Hampton called "plain proletarian english", I'll call him an Uncle Tom if I damn well please.

23rd February 2008, 17:55

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 20:09

On some policy issues perhaps they are the same thing. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would have EVER put Sam Alito and/or John Roberts on the Supreme Court. They have more impact than who is president and what they do policy wise. I don't care about all that so much because of the House and Senate. There's going to be some on the Supreme Court resigning soon so whomever is president next will choose their replacements for a generation. Have you been following this Supreme Court at all? The one's who said torture is a-okay? The one's who said that corporations, not people, have the first amendment? Go and read up on what they're doing under Roberts as chief justice. Realize what is going on with the Supreme Court. Do you know how important it is to us as a country? Until you realize that than having any type of discussion about this with you is useless.

And I'm speaking of the democrats as liberal where exactly? :rolleyes: No where have I said any of that shit. There are a few democrats I do like but as a party I don't. Keep your spin shit to yourself. If you can't actually talk about what I've actually SAID than don't bother.

And you think because you're black you can't be racist? Get real. There ARE other skin colors out there you know. Just because you're black doesn't mean you can't be racist. And still the fact you find those words acceptable is just disgusting and I really could give a damn what color you are. Why does that matter? It doesn't. Right so that's why if you look at Obama's crowds so many different colors are there. :rolleyes: I guess you better go and educate all those ignorant people right? Just because they believe differently than you do.

And the CIA has to do with what? This has nothing to do with this thread. Can you stick to the topic?

You talk about the Neo-Cons and Ultra-Right conservatives as if they and the Democrats were two seperate entities. What I and others are trying to point out is that these politicians are the same thing. No matter which political party has been in office, America's policies go unchanged.

Don't be fooled because the Democrats seem radical or "liberal" compared to the Republicans. Democrats didn't stop America's genocide on people of color, Democrats have overthrown soeverign, democratically elected governments for personal gain, Democrats support Israel's holocaust against the Arabs.

Er...I know this sounds a little cliché and there's no graceful way to point out this fact without sounding arrogant, but I'm Black, and therefore your charges of racism are baseless. They may sound a little harsh to the ear, but these are terms, descendant from slavery, are simply ways for the Blacks and other dark skinned people to point out others who are submissive to Whites and can't even relate to their own people, much less act in their own interests.

It's a historical fact that the CIA has murdered, under-minded, and overthrew progressive Black leaders and replaced them with "safe" puppets of their choosing. The government didn't waste all that time and money repeatedly disinfranchising us to let one guy come and change anything. So, to say it in what Fred Hampton called "plain proletarian english", I'll call him an Uncle Tom if I damn well please.

RNK

23rd February 2008, 20:12

Stop posing here.

QFT.

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 20:12

Yawn. I've time and time again have said Obama is nothing like Kennedy or MLK way before I even came here. Why do I care what YOU think? Do you think you're something important? No. Get over it. You seriously need to actually do a little thing called reading and comprehending. I've time and time again have said why I'm voting in November. Getting out of Iraq, defeating the ultra rightwing and the Supreme Court. Get over it and newsflash: I'm NOT the only one here either. So go beat up on them with your holier than thou bullshit.

Stop posing here.

Sankofa

23rd February 2008, 20:46

On some policy issues perhaps they are the same thing. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would have EVER put Sam Alito and/or John Roberts on the Supreme Court. They have more impact than who is president and what they do policy wise. I don't care about all that so much because of the House and Senate. There's going to be some on the Supreme Court resigning soon so whomever is president next will choose their replacements for a generation. Have you been following this Supreme Court at all? The one's who said torture is a-okay? The one's who said that corporations, not people, have the first amendment? Go and read up on what they're doing under Roberts as chief justice. Realize what is going on with the Supreme Court. Do you know how important it is to us as a country? Until you realize that than having any type of discussion about this with you is useless.

The completely honest with you, no. I don't get particularly wound up in meaningless capitialist politics. You're thinking way too small here; it doesn't matter who the hell is appointed to the Supreme Court. While you're telling me to read, "comrade", you might want to review your American History.

Hasn't the United States always tortured? Hasn't America always spat on its own constitution? News flash: Facism in North America isn't exclusive with the Bush Regime. It started in 1492 (:lol:) when Europeans landed here, claimed this land as their own and commited genocide on the Indigenous under their "Manifest Destiny" ideology. It hasn't stopped since; and won't stop. Oh, and fuck your country, because plain history has taught me that the supposed "freedom" of the United States doesn't apply to me.

And I'm speaking of the democrats as liberal where exactly? :rolleyes: No where have I said any of that shit. There are a few democrats I do like but as a party I don't. Keep your spin shit to yourself. If you can't actually talk about what I've actually SAID than don't bother.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. This is what you said:

And no I don't think Obama will change again much of anything but he can at least start it and we can at least keep the ultra rightwing and neocons from ever getting power again. If Obama is the first step then so be it. Same with Hillary.

Thereby implying that you think the Democrats are more liberal or lenient than the Republicans. I've already pointed out to you how there is no difference between these two bodies.

And you think because you're black you can't be racist? Get real. There ARE other skin colors out there you know. Just because you're black doesn't mean you can't be racist. And still the fact you find those words acceptable is just disgusting and I really could give a damn what color you are. Why does that matter? It doesn't. Right so that's why if you look at Obama's crowds so many different colors are there. :rolleyes: I guess you better go and educate all those ignorant people right? Just because they believe differently than you do.

And the CIA has to do with what? This has nothing to do with this thread. Can you stick to the topic?

For Pete's sake, you're one to talk about actually speaking about what some one's said. I never implied that being Black makes me incapable of being a racist. You were expressing your disgust at my apparent "racism" against Obama, which is why I brought up my color. The CIA was brought up to remind you how much Blacks have been systematically oppressed.

You are in no moral position to pass judgement on me using a term against one of my own people, who claims to have my best interests at heart, but actually won't address our real problems here in Amerika with a 10-foot pole so he won't alienate his white supporters. You're the only one here that needs to be educated. Yes, I called Obama a house n-i-g-g-e-r and if you have a problem with that, fuck off.

Stop posing here.

Thank you.

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 20:57

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 21:00

Oh and you might want to re-read what you quoted me as. No where in that quoted box did I say anything about Obama or Clinton being liberal. No where. Want to borrow my glasses? If you go back and read it again I even said that I don't think they'll change much of anything. Try reading it again while this time comprehending it. K? Just so you don't look like a moron next time. No where did I say they were liberal but I did say they could change things and get on the right direction with progress and cleaning up the mess George Bush and the ultra rightwing/neocons left.

The completely honest with you, no. I don't particularly wound up in meaningless capitialist politics. You're thinking way too small here; it doesn't matter who the hell is appointed to the Supreme Court. While you're telling me to read, "comrade", you might want to review your American History.

Hasn't the United States always tortured? Hasn't America always spat on its on constitution? News flash: Facism in North America isn't exclusive with the Bush Regime. It started in 1942 when Europeans landed here, claimed this land as their own and commited genocide on the Indigenous under their "Manifest Destiny" ideology. It hasn't stopped since; and won't stop. Oh, and fuck your country, but plain history has taught me that the supposed "freedom" of the United States doesn't apply to me.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. This is what you said:

Thereby implying that you think the Democrats are more liberal or lenient than the Republicans. I've already pointed out to you how there is no difference between these two bodies.

Sankofa

23rd February 2008, 21:21

No I am thinking big. I'm thinking for generations. Do you want the Supreme Court to ever again butt itself where it doesn't belong with an election and have another disastrous four to eight years with some moron?

And hon you might want to read yourself. Don't pretend you know me and my education. You know shit. Keep that to your damn self.

1942? I think you have your dates mixed up mr history. And it was before 1492. For a great and easy history read pick up "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It won't stop? Wow so again with the psychic powers. You still haven't told me what I'm going to make on my paper I'm waiting to get back. So mr psychic can you tell me? I am a psychic and not even I pretend to know what's going to happen tomorrow. :lol: You're better than me! (and I've even been right about some things)

At least have the common decency to let me finish responding properly before you start quoting a broken post that's obviously not complete.

I never challenged your education, your knowledge of America's past was put to question. With that said, are you actually going to make any attempt to address my points or are you just going to call me names all day?

Try and prove to me how America is capable of changing its policies (no matter what year it began), or keep your mouth closed.

Oh and you might want to re-read what you quoted me as. No where in that quoted box did I say anything about Obama or Clinton being liberal. No where. Want to borrow my glasses? If you go back and read it again I even said that I don't think they'll change much of anything. Try reading it again while this time comprehending it. K? Just so you don't look like a moron next time. No where did I say they were liberal but I did say they could change things and get on the right direction with progress and cleaning up the mess George Bush and the ultra rightwing/neocons left.

Ugh...

And no I don't think Obama will change again much of anything but he can at least start it and we can at least keep the ultra rightwing and neocons from ever getting power again. If Obama is the first step then so be it. Same with Hillary.

How is this not implying that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans? The word "liberal" meaning favorable to progress or reform, favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties?

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 21:44

Well you're the one hon who posted it uncompleted. It's YOUR doing not mine. Next time it's YOUR job to make sure that your post is finished. Don't ***** at me. That's your thing again.

LOL the name comment is funny coming from you. Yes you did challenge my education. That's exactly what you were doing. Keep that shit to yourself.

First of all America just isn't the United States. There's also a place called Southern/Latin America. So do you want me to go over them too or specifically the United States? Make yourself clear. And the United States only changes it's policy's when the people get involved. By sitting at home and doing shit you're also approving of what the United States is doing. I'm not going to play psychic and pretend to know that I know what is going to happen tomorrow. As I've said even I'm psychic and don't pretend to know what tomorrow brings.

As a former liberal I'm going to ask you this seriously: do you have any fucking clue what the word means? It seems like you don't. As someone who is a former liberal neither Obama nor Clinton are liberals or close to it. They're actually quite conservative for my personal tastes. Even by your own definition they aren't liberals. God I hate repeating myself. Oh and on edit no where did I call you a name. I simply said to actually read and comprehend what I'm writing and asked if you wanted to borrow my glasses. No where was there any sort of name. Maybe you do need to borrow my glasses.

At least have the common decency to let me finish responding properly before you start quoting a broken post that's obviously not complete.

I never challenged your education, your knowledge of America's past was put to question. With that said, are you actually going to make any attempt to address my points or are you just going to call me names all day?

Try and prove to me how America is capable of changing its policies (no matter what year it began), or keep your mouth closed.

Ugh...

How is this not implying that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans? The word "liberal" meaning favorable to progress or reform, favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties?

Sankofa

23rd February 2008, 22:14

Well you're the one hon who posted it uncompleted. It's YOUR doing not mine. Next time it's YOUR job to make sure that your post is finished. Don't ***** at me. That's your thing again.

LOL the name comment is funny coming from you. Yes you did challenge my education. That's exactly what you were doing. Keep that shit to yourself.

First of all America just isn't the United States. There's also a place called Southern/Latin America. So do you want me to go over them too or specifically the United States? Make yourself clear. And the United States only changes it's policy's when the people get involved. By sitting at home and doing shit you're also approving of what the United States is doing. I'm not going to play psychic and pretend to know that I know what is going to happen tomorrow. As I've said even I'm psychic and don't pretend to know what tomorrow brings.

As a former liberal I'm going to ask you this seriously: do you have any fucking clue what the word means? It seems like you don't. As someone who is a former liberal neither Obama nor Clinton are liberals or close to it. They're actually quite conservative for my personal tastes. Even by your own definition they aren't liberals. God I hate repeating myself. Oh and on edit no where did I call you a name. I simply said to actually read and comprehend what I'm writing and asked if you wanted to borrow my glasses. No where was there any sort of name. Maybe you do need to borrow my glasses.

:rolleyes: Oh boy, this is going some where quick, fast, and in a hurry. You keep repeating your self because instead of actually debating, you're not even trying to expand on your own opinions. You keep bringing up shit that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes, I know that "America" is more than the United States. It's obvious that I was talking about the U.S., I don't have to make myself clear.

Oh, by all means, please bring Latin America into this discussion. You'd be doing me a favor. If there's anywhere that's a living, breathing example of eternal American- oops excuse me, don't want you to get confused; North American gringo, white supremacy and imperialism, it's Latin America.

Wow so you're a psychic? Amazing! Can you tell me what grade I'll make on my next paper?

1942? I think you have your dates mixed up mr history. And it was before 1492. For a great and easy history read pick up "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It won't stop? Wow so again with the psychic powers. You still haven't told me what I'm going to make on my paper I'm waiting to get back. So mr psychic can you tell me? I am a psychic and not even I pretend to know what's going to happen tomorrow. :lol: You're better than me! (and I've even been right about some things)

This is the rhetoric I'm referring to. You've been quick to mock me by calling me a psychic, but have never attempted, not once, to prove how what I've said isn't historically, and presently fact.

I'm not going to keep quoting your same post, over and over again. "Liberal" means some one who's favorable to reform, progress and change, does it not? It's clear that you think Democrats are progressive.

SouthernBelle82

23rd February 2008, 22:39

This is a message board. I'm not a mind reader.

And hon where have I ever said other wise? You do need to borrow my glasses I think.

I'm calling you a psychic because you're pretending to be one! Do you know what a psychic does? A psychic predicts the future. Which is what you're doing! You're trying to predict the future and that is what a psychic does. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a damn fucking duck. You're trying to say you'll know what will happen tomorrow when in fact you don't have a damn fucking clue. You have as much a clue as I do and I'm even an admitted psychic. And the fact you're taking it as an insult shows a lot. What am I now going to insult myself? Hardly. Don't quit your day job .

Hon read and comprehend. In the quote you even quoted me saying I said that I thought that Clinton and/or Obama wouldn't change much. That's not liberal. FDR was a liberal. Obama and Clinton are not. They would not change much of anything. Please get some glasses or something. I'm tired of repeating myself with you.

:rolleyes: Oh boy, this is going some where quick, fast, and in a hurry. You keep repeating your self because instead of actually debating, you're not even trying to expand on your own opinions. You keep bringing up shit that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes, I know that "America" is more than the United States. It's obvious that I was talking about the U.S., I don't have to make myself clear.

Oh, by all means, please bring Latin America into this discussion. You'd be doing me a favor. If there's anywhere that's a living, breathing example of eternal American- oops excuse me, don't want you to get confused; North American gringo, white supremacy and imperialism, it's Latin America.

This is the rhetoric I'm referring to. You've been quick to mock me by calling me a psychic, but have never attempted, not once, to prove how what I've said isn't historically, and presently fact.

I'm not going to keep quoting your same post, over and over again. "Liberal" means some one who's favorable to reform, progress and change, does it not? It's clear that you think Democrats are progressive.

Sankofa

23rd February 2008, 22:58

This is a message board. I'm not a mind reader.

And hon where have I ever said other wise? You do need to borrow my glasses I think.

I'm calling you a psychic because you're pretending to be one! Do you know what a psychic does? A psychic predicts the future. Which is what you're doing! You're trying to predict the future and that is what a psychic does. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a damn fucking duck. You're trying to say you'll know what will happen tomorrow when in fact you don't have a damn fucking clue. You have as much a clue as I do and I'm even an admitted psychic. And the fact you're taking it as an insult shows a lot. What am I now going to insult myself? Hardly. Don't quit your day job .

Hon read and comprehend. In the quote you even quoted me saying I said that I thought that Clinton and/or Obama wouldn't change much. That's not liberal. FDR was a liberal. Obama and Clinton are not. They would not change much of anything. Please get some glasses or something. I'm tired of repeating myself with you.

(Before I touch on your post, I just now noticed where I typed "1942" instead of "1492". That was an obvious mistake...there's no way in hell you actually believed that's what I meant.)

:laugh: I'm the one who's yawning now. You keep repeating yourself because you're not saying anything.

Yet again, you have zero intention of making a logical argument about the subject and just keep ranting around it.

I've got better fucking things to do with my Saturday then play pitty-pat back and forth with you. When you're actually ready to say anything serioius, let me know.

Take it easy.

RNK

23rd February 2008, 23:22

You're trying to say you'll know what will happen tomorrow when in fact you don't have a damn fucking clue.

About certain things, yes. But there are some phenomena in this world that are able to be studied for long periods of time, to the point that an educated prediction can be made as to what will take place. For all intents and purposes, there is nothing about Obama or Clinton which challenges the long-studied phenomenon of bourgeois democracy; if either is elected, nothing substantial will change, and in another 4 years we'll be having the same arguement about the next round of fresh, young bourgeois politicians.

The main reason why things won't change is that the political and economic dynamic of the United States is not even an issue to these people. The reason the United States invaded Iraq is not because Bush woke up one day and decided he wanted to do it; it is because the invasion had been a gleam in the eyes of thousands of bourgeois politicials, economists, intellectuals and corporate cronies for over a decade, and they lobbied, and created public committees, had meetings and parties and viewings and lobbied and generally spent, collectively, millions upon millions of dollars to make it happen.

Now, as neither Obama nor Hillary have shown any inkling as to even publically recognizing this fact, let alone shown any motivation to change it, there is a substantial amount of leverage behind an arguement such as Yonkers'.

The reason your position is so heavily frowned upon here is because you are propagating a position that we can rely on the bourgeois democratic institution. This is very dangerous ground. This leads to complacency among potential revolutionaries, and leads them to forego truely revolutionary causes in exchange for a "false hope". It amounts to little more than playing directly into the hands of the ruling class themselves who want you to believe in their democracy, who want you to believe it is an effective tool, so that you don't go wandering off looking for other tools -- revolutionary tools -- to change things.

This is not a matter of opinion but a reflection on solid, well-studied fact. It is about as close to absolutism as you can get.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 02:38

Because I have to keep repeating myself to someone who is obviously either dense or being dense on purpose.

No hon. You just disagree. There's a difference. Why am I not surprised with you?

LOL and you want me to take you seriously when you can't even spell seriously right? Yeah you must have soooo much to do you did a couple of posts talking back and forth. Yeah you're so busy (sarcasm). :rolleyes:

If you're so busy why are you on here in the first place on your Saturday? Obviously you aren't and are just lying. Funny how you say that now. :rolleyes:
How old are you? Twelve? If you can't have a discussion with someone who obviously thinks differently than you than you should stay out of the political section or stick to threads where someone else does your thinking for you and you can just yap how you agree and never have to challenge yourself and/or your so-called beliefs. What a joke. Go run to your mommy and your "busy" day.

(Before I touch on your post, I just now noticed where I typed "1942" instead of "1492". That was an obvious mistake...there's no way in hell you actually believed that's what I meant.)

:laugh: I'm the one who's yawning now. You keep repeating yourself because you're not saying anything.

Yet again, you have zero intention of making a logical argument about the subject and just keep ranting around it.

I've got better fucking things to do with my Saturday then play pitty-pat back and forth with you. When you're actually ready to say anything serioius, let me know.

Take it easy.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 02:52

Nope. No matter what you don't have a fucking clue what's going to happen tomorrow. Even what you're going to do for lunch even if you do the same thing every day there are uncontrolled circumstances in our world that happens that could stop you from doing the same thing you do for lunch. You could get caught up with tons of work or heaven forbid get into some sort of accident or be caught up in traffic that lasts for three hours. Get my point? NOBODY has a clue what's going to happen in the future. You can try to know by going by the past but that's just pure speculation. Now is the United States likely going to change it's policy's based on the past and speculation? Probably not. But again even I as an admitted psychic don't claim to know what's going to happen. Whenever I tell someone about something that COULD happen I always tell them that because of one thing that could change. That one thing is FREE WILL. For all we know here on this board is in the next ten years we could elect a socialist or communist president and that president will change policy's. See what I'm saying? I hope so.

Now you're totally right about Iraq so you get no arguments from me. It's all about oil and Saddam wanting to go into Euro's instead of dollars and the dollar going down the drain.

Now Obama has said he was against going in Iraq in the beginning. Of course he has no public record of the fact so for all we know he could be yapping but if you go back and look for speeches he did back then he was against it. Everyone who know of him back then knew it. He has said he's not against all wars just stupid wars so of course that's a broad statement without him going more on it so each person can take that as they will. Obama however has appeared to be more open-minded than Hillary and he does have ties to inner cities and working class people and not just bourgeoisie. I'm not putting any hope in Obama I'm just saying he's a bit more open minded even though everyone who is into politics knows there isn't that much difference policy wise than him and Clinton and I don't like the fact a lot of neocons are liking Obama and even advising him. My whole thing is we as a country have to start somewhere and while this is all going on very left wing revolutionary parties involved with socialism and/or communism can start working and getting involved in our political system and getting involved with elections and running and showing people there is a better way than either of the two parties who have been disappointing (especially the democrats because people expect it now days with republicans).

I don't think I have said to rely on the bourgeoisie. If you don't want to do so than that's your own decision. Just don't beat up on me or anyone else for wanting to work with people on improving our society. You can't improve society and bring people to your line of thinking by being closed minded and cut off from majority of the society. We live in a society that is very much into capitalism and is a bourgeoisie society. To ignore that reality is foolish and only makes you go backward instead of forward. I understand but I don't agree. We have to start from somewhere and even that means working with people who would cut my throat in a heart beat than so be it. I want to have children in the future and I want to start working now on improving society by the time they are here. I don't want them to have the shit hole we live in now. Do you? So I hope you at least UNDERSTAND where I'm coming from and know that understanding does not mean you agree. It just means you get what I'm saying and vice versa. I don't take it too kindly when people do their holier than thou bullshit like Yonkers and others here who think they know better than me. Yes I'm new to communism and still have some of my former liberal beliefs still in me but what do you expect with someone who is still new to communism? All I ask is you treat me with some sort of respect and understanding and don't act holier than thou and be patient with me. I've been going more to the left these last few years. I've gone from being a liberal to a socialist to a communist in just a few months in reality. So I am trying but I want to be honest with everyone as I can and if anyone thinks I'm phony I'm not: I'm just new. There's a huge difference.

Where I understand with your last point and agree to a point democracy does work in places. Look at Venezuela. They use democracy. Of course they have been revolutionary at times too. Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said sometimes you need a revolution? Sorry I can't remember the exact founding father who said it but one of the main guys did and I do agree there and you should always keep the tools in mind. With me I would just rather try other options first. Revolutions can be messy and we've learned that from our own here in the States and by watching with other country's too. I guess that's the pacifist in me ya know?

About certain things, yes. But there are some phenomena in this world that are able to be studied for long periods of time, to the point that an educated prediction can be made as to what will take place. For all intents and purposes, there is nothing about Obama or Clinton which challenges the long-studied phenomenon of bourgeois democracy; if either is elected, nothing substantial will change, and in another 4 years we'll be having the same arguement about the next round of fresh, young bourgeois politicians.

The main reason why things won't change is that the political and economic dynamic of the United States is not even an issue to these people. The reason the United States invaded Iraq is not because Bush woke up one day and decided he wanted to do it; it is because the invasion had been a gleam in the eyes of thousands of bourgeois politicials, economists, intellectuals and corporate cronies for over a decade, and they lobbied, and created public committees, had meetings and parties and viewings and lobbied and generally spent, collectively, millions upon millions of dollars to make it happen.

Now, as neither Obama nor Hillary have shown any inkling as to even publically recognizing this fact, let alone shown any motivation to change it, there is a substantial amount of leverage behind an arguement such as Yonkers'.

The reason your position is so heavily frowned upon here is because you are propagating a position that we can rely on the bourgeois democratic institution. This is very dangerous ground. This leads to complacency among potential revolutionaries, and leads them to forego truely revolutionary causes in exchange for a "false hope". It amounts to little more than playing directly into the hands of the ruling class themselves who want you to believe in their democracy, who want you to believe it is an effective tool, so that you don't go wandering off looking for other tools -- revolutionary tools -- to change things.

This is not a matter of opinion but a reflection on solid, well-studied fact. It is about as close to absolutism as you can get.

Sankofa

24th February 2008, 02:58

Because I have to keep repeating myself to someone who is obviously either dense or being dense on purpose.

No hon. You just disagree. There's a difference. Why am I not surprised with you?

LOL and you want me to take you seriously when you can't even spell seriously right? Yeah you must have soooo much to do you did a couple of posts talking back and forth. Yeah you're so busy (sarcasm). :rolleyes:

If you're so busy why are you on here in the first place on your Saturday? Obviously you aren't and are just lying. Funny how you say that now. :rolleyes:
How old are you? Twelve? If you can't have a discussion with someone who obviously thinks differently than you than you should stay out of the political section or stick to threads where someone else does your thinking for you and you can just yap how you agree and never have to challenge yourself and/or your so-called beliefs. What a joke. Go run to your mommy and your "busy" day.

Your rhetoric was slightly amusing, but now it's just sad. You're the stupid **** that's being dense, you haven't stayed on topic this entire thread.

Again, instead of actually posting something with substance, you're *****ing because put an extra "i" in the word "serious". :confused:

It's obvious we disagree, but you haven't attempted not one time to defend your position, unless you count "lawl ur nawt psychik!1" as a reasonable argument.

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm 20 and I left because I had to work.

But I digress, everyone can see what a twit you are. Like always, heavy on slander but never an intelligent argument or point to make.

RNK already summed up what I was going to say, and I've already wasted too much time arguing with you.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 03:05

I have been on topic hon. Who is it off topic now? You're not talking about the topic at all are you? No you're *****ing about me and now YOU'RE name calling and calling me a degrading name for a female. How disgusting. Why should I take you seriously with your shit? The only "name" I've called you is a psychic wannabe and if you think that is a name than that's pathetic. And if a **** is the best you can do than that's also pathetic. How old are you? Twelve? You surely act like it. Uh I have defended my position. I guess you just missed the real long post I just made right above the original post I'm quoting. Either that or I was typing it up when you replied to this. Why should I bother to defend myself when you have such disrespect for me? And as I said in my other thread I just posted I'm new to communism and I'm still a pacifist. I guess you call people's opinions on here rhetoric so everyone on here according to you has their own rhetoric including yourself. :rolleyes: Heavy on slander? Wow you don't know what slander is hon. I'm posting my opinions on a message board. Not slander. There's a huge difference. Please get a dictionary with your work money or go to dictionary.com and look up the word "slander." And for the record hon I'm twenty-five so don't think you're the shit because you're twenty. You're technically still a kid and you still act like it too. You haven't argued with me at all Yonkers. Just did some holier than thou bullshit and you haven't defended anything you've said at all. It's been just rambling and yapping. You're pathetic. Oh and huh I thought you were done wasting your time with me but apparently you lied about that too. So tell me again why I should take you seriously?

Your rhetoric was slightly amusing, but now it's just sad. You're the stupid **** that's being dense, you haven't stayed on topic this entire thread.

Again, instead of actually posting something with substance, you're *****ing because put an extra "i" in the word "serious". :confused:

It's obvious we disagree, but you haven't attempted not one time to defend your position, unless you count "lawl ur nawt psychik!1" as a reasonable argument.

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm 20 and I left because I had to work.

But I digress, any moron can see what a twit you are. Like always, heavy on slander but never an intelligent argument or point to make.

RNK already summed up what I was going to say, and I've already wasted too arguing with you.

Sankofa

24th February 2008, 03:42

I have been on topic hon. Who is it off topic now? You're not talking about the topic at all are you? No you're *****ing about me and now YOU'RE name calling and calling me a degrading name for a female.

You are some fucking piece of work, you know that? You spend this whole thread bull shitting, just now reply to another person's post hours later, and now you want to pretend you actually contributed intellectually at all?

As far as calling you a **** goes, b o o h o o, you can call me a dick if that makes you feel better.

Find me one quote of yourself before your response to RNK where you actually attempted to debate.

Heavy on slander? Wow you don't know what slander is hon. I'm posting my opinions on a message board. Not slander. There's a huge difference. Please get a dictionary with your work money or go to dictionary.com and look up the word "slander."

Typical...more irrelevant rubbish. I know the difference between libel and slander. In the same way you might tell some one to "shut up" over the internet, is the way I used slander, if you like I can use the edit button to change it.

And for the record hon I'm twenty-five so don't think you're the shit because you're twenty. You're technically still a kid and you still act like it too.

I don't think of myself highly being 20 years old, you're the one that accused me of being twelve, which is why I told you my age. Oh, and calling some one a kid that should go run to their mommy is a prime example of maturity. Weren't you the one that told me that I didn't know "shit" about who you were? Listen to your own advice.

Why should I bother to defend myself when you have such disrespect for me? And as I said in my other thread I just posted I'm new to communism and I'm still a pacifist.

Nothing wrong with being a pacifist, but sooner or later you're going to have to understand that violence is the only way the working class is going to make progress, not participating in bourgeoisie elections.

You haven't argued with me at all Yonkers. Just did some holier than thou bullshit and you haven't defended anything you've said at all. It's been just rambling and yapping. You're pathetic.

:rolleyes: You're so right, I never tried to have an argument with you, except

This post here:

There isn't anything revolutionary about a black president. The system is unchanged no matter who's president; white/black, republican/democrat.

I don't see why everyone is rallying around him like he's some kind of great change for the United States. In office, Obama will be another house nigger uncle tom in Washington (joining his counterparts Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell) that answers to the same people that Bush does, period.

That's the only reason you need not to vote for Obama, or any other cappie running for this bullshit election.

here:

I don't have to have ESP to know what Obama will (or won't do rather) his people or to change the country for that matter. Any half wit can see that. You really think Obama can change 500 years of institutionalized white racism in 4 years? Think he'll stop imperialism and exploitation?

Being Black doesn't make you revolutionary. We've had two "Toms" already as Secretary of State which accomplished virtually nothing. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

...here:

You talk about the Neo-Cons and Ultra-Right conservatives as if they and the Democrats were two seperate entities. What I and others are trying to point out is that these politicians are the same thing. No matter which political party has been in office, America's policies go unchanged.

Don't be fooled because the Democrats seem radical or "liberal" compared to the Republicans. Democrats didn't stop America's genocide on people of color, Democrats have overthrown soeverign, democratically elected governments for personal gain, Democrats support Israel's holocaust against the Arabs.

Er...I know this sounds a little cliché and there's no graceful way to point out this fact without sounding arrogant, but I'm Black, and therefore your charges of racism are baseless. They may sound a little harsh to the ear, but these are terms, descendant from slavery, are simply ways for the Blacks and other dark skinned people to point out others who are submissive to Whites and can't even relate to their own people, much less act in their own interests.

It's a historical fact that the CIA has murdered, under-minded, and overthrew progressive Black leaders and replaced them with "safe" puppets of their choosing. The government didn't waste all that time and money repeatedly disinfranchising us to let one guy come and change anything. So, to say it in what Fred Hampton called "plain proletarian english", I'll call him an Uncle Tom if I damn well please.

and here:

The completely honest with you, no. I don't get particularly wound up in meaningless capitialist politics. You're thinking way too small here; it doesn't matter who the hell is appointed to the Supreme Court. While you're telling me to read, "comrade", you might want to review your American History.

Hasn't the United States always tortured? Hasn't America always spat on its own constitution? News flash: Facism in North America isn't exclusive with the Bush Regime. It started in 1492 (:lol:) when Europeans landed here, claimed this land as their own and commited genocide on the Indigenous under their "Manifest Destiny" ideology. It hasn't stopped since; and won't stop. Oh, and fuck your country, because plain history has taught me that the supposed "freedom" of the United States doesn't apply to me.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. This is what you said:

Thereby implying that you think the Democrats are more liberal or lenient than the Republicans. I've already pointed out to you how there is no difference between these two bodies.

For Pete's sake, you're one to talk about actually speaking about what some one's said. I never implied that being Black makes me incapable of being a racist. You were expressing your disgust at my apparent "racism" against Obama, which is why I brought up my color. The CIA was brought up to remind you how much Blacks have been systematically oppressed.

You are in no moral position to pass judgement on me using a term against one of my own people, who claims to have my best interests at heart, but actually won't address our real problems here in Amerika with a 10-foot pole so he won't alienate his white supporters. You're the only one here that needs to be educated. Yes, I called Obama a house n-i-g-g-e-r and if you have a problem with that, fuck off.

Thank you.

and there:

At least have the common decency to let me finish responding properly before you start quoting a broken post that's obviously not complete.

I never challenged your education, your knowledge of America's past was put to question. With that said, are you actually going to make any attempt to address my points or are you just going to call me names all day?

Try and prove to me how America is capable of changing its policies (no matter what year it began), or keep your mouth closed.

Ugh...

How is this not implying that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans? The word "liberal" meaning favorable to progress or reform, favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties?

geez, and here too:

:rolleyes: Oh boy, this is going some where quick, fast, and in a hurry. You keep repeating your self because instead of actually debating, you're not even trying to expand on your own opinions. You keep bringing up shit that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes, I know that "America" is more than the United States. It's obvious that I was talking about the U.S., I don't have to make myself clear.

Oh, by all means, please bring Latin America into this discussion. You'd be doing me a favor. If there's anywhere that's a living, breathing example of eternal American- oops excuse me, don't want you to get confused; North American gringo, white supremacy and imperialism, it's Latin America.

That's a whole lot of me not arguing with you. :D

Oh and huh I thought you were done wasting your time with me but apparently you lied about that too. So tell me again why I should take you seriously?

I'm only continuing this out of a combination of my morbid curiosity to how far you'll pretend like you actually know what you're talking about and the fact that I wouldn't give some one like yourself the satisfaction of thinking you've won simply because you have the last "word".

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 03:53

Uh what are you talking about? God do you have some sort of issue where you can't read and comprehend what I'm saying? All I said was I have been on topic through the thread except for now with your bullshit. Now with the whole intellectual comment that is personal opinion. I don't believe I ever made that claim. So stick to what I say please. If you can. It doesn't seem like you can.

I expected better from someone who claims to be intelligent. Is that the best you can come up with? A ****? That's pathetic. No where was I boohooing hon. Don't read too much into something that isn't there. Psst sometimes that's called delusions.

I'm not going to do your work for you. You can scroll up and read through the whole thread if you want. You got fingers and I thought you were suppose to be intelligent.

Uh no you didn't use slander. My opinions aren't slander. They're just that. They're not rumors or anything else. Again, get a dictionary or go to dictionary.com

You were acting like a child so you deserve to be treated like a child. And a child goes to their mother and cries. You do act like you're twelve which is why I asked how old you were. It's not that believable that you're twenty. And by your attitude you certainly do have the holier than thou bullshit down pat. Take it somewhere else. I don't put up with that.

Nope it's only your opinion about violence. There's plenty of places in history where it's been proven other wise. Remember Ghandi for example? I guess you forgot him and his movement. Even Jesus but Ghandi is a better example for this discussion. Oh and on your "arguing" only two of those you quoted were any type of discussion and argument. The rest was your bullshit crap.

So I guess you were lying then huh. I'm not surprised. Why do you think this is about "winning"? This has nothing to do with "winning." I came here on Revleft to learn, communicate with like minds and to maybe do some activism and get involved. I didn't come here to "win" anything. If you did you're yapping to the wrong person. Go somewhere else to beat your macho chest crap. I posted something to you and others here but it got moved to chit-chat. I'm not holding my breath for you to read it though. Oh and I've never claimed to be more intelligent or anything here than anyone else. I have my own opinions, beliefs etc. just like everyone else. Get over yourself seriously. You aren't all that.

You are some fucking piece of work, you know that? You spend this whole thread bull shitting, just now reply to another person's hours later, and now you want to pretend you actually contributed intellectually at all?

As far as calling you a **** goes, b o o h o o, you can call me a dick if that makes you feel better.

Find me one quote of yourself before your response to RNK where you actually attempted to debate.

Typical...more irrelevant rubbish. I know the difference between libel and slander. In the same way you might tell some one to "shut up" over the internet, is the way I used slander, if you like I can use the edit button to change it.

I don't think of myself highly being 20 years old, you're the one that accused me of being twelve, which is why I told you my age. Oh, and calling some one a kid that should go run to their mommy is a prime example of maturity. Weren't you the one that told me that I didn't know "shit" about who you were? Listen to your own advice.

Nothing wrong with being a pacifist, but sooner or later you're going to have to understand that violence is the only way the working class is going to make progress, not participating in bourgeoisie elections.

:rolleyes: You're so right, I never tried to have an argument with you, except

here:

...here:

and here:

and there:

geez, and here too:

That's a whole lot of me not arguing with you. :D

I'm only continuing this out of a combination of my morbid curiosity to how far you'll pretend like you actually know what you're talking about and I wouldn't give some one like your self the satisfaction of thinking you've won simply because you have the last "word".

Sankofa

24th February 2008, 04:20

Uh what are you talking about? God do you have some sort of issue where you can't read and comprehend what I'm saying? All I said was I have been on topic through the thread except for now with your bullshit. Now with the whole intellectual comment that is personal opinion. I don't believe I ever made that claim. So stick to what I say please. If you can. It doesn't seem like you can.

I expected better from someone who claims to be intelligent. Is that the best you can come up with? A ****? That's pathetic. No where was I boohooing hon. Don't read too much into something that isn't there. Psst sometimes that's called delusions.

I'm not going to do your work for you. You can scroll up and read through the whole thread if you want. You got fingers and I thought you were suppose to be intelligent.

Uh no you didn't use slander. My opinions aren't slander. They're just that. They're not rumors or anything else. Again, get a dictionary or go to dictionary.com

You were acting like a child so you deserve to be treated like a child. And a child goes to their mother and cries. You do act like you're twelve which is why I asked how old you were. It's not that believable that you're twenty. And by your attitude you certainly do have the holier than thou bullshit down pat. Take it somewhere else. I don't put up with that.

Nope it's only your opinion about violence. There's plenty of places in history where it's been proven other wise. Remember Ghandi for example? I guess you forgot him and his movement. Even Jesus but Ghandi is a better example for this discussion. Oh and on your "arguing" only two of those you quoted were any type of discussion and argument. The rest was your bullshit crap.

So I guess you were lying then huh. I'm not surprised. Why do you think this is about "winning"? This has nothing to do with "winning." I came here on Revleft to learn, communicate with like minds and to maybe do some activism and get involved. I didn't come here to "win" anything. If you did you're yapping to the wrong person. Go somewhere else to beat your macho chest crap. I posted something to you and others here but it got moved to chit-chat. I'm not holding my breath for you to read it though. Oh and I've never claimed to be more intelligent or anything here than anyone else. I have my own opinions, beliefs etc. just like everyone else. Get over yourself seriously. You aren't all that.

Why don't you just give it up? You did it before and you're doing it again now, you're not saying anything.

Calling me a "12 year old" was slander and not your opinion.

Violent revolution isn't an opinion, it's fact. You can talk pacifism all day long. I will never be non-violent against a system that is violent towards me, that's just common sense.

Also, fuck Ghandi and Fuck Jesus. One is an overrated racist and the other is a fairy tale.

All of which I quoted from myself were my own arguments about why voting period is worthless. You not being able to come up with anything to refute what I said doesn't make it "bullshit".

A post ago, you said I didn't argue with you at all, and now you're changing your tune? I'll take your refusal to show where you at all participated in the discussion an admission that you can not find one.

I never said I was "all that" or attempted to say my opinion was better than anyone else. This whole thing started because you disagreed with me, yet didn't tell me one rational reason why you did.

Nice job trying to play the damsel in distress at the end, as if I specifically picked you out, it's an excellent strategy.

Seriously, scroll the fuck up, it's all there. How long do you intend to carry this on?

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 04:31

And you think you're saying something? LOL. :laugh:

No hon it WAS my opinion. Which again is why I asked how old you were. Didn't you read it? I asked you how old you were, twelve? I asked to find out hon. :rolleyes: God are you fucking grasping for straws.

No hon it's not common sense. It's your opinion. My opinion is it doesn't work. MLK agreed too.... With this we'd just have to agree to disagree. I'm not a violent person and if I do hurt someone whether I mean to or not I always feel horrible afterwards (the whole guilt thing). That's just me and obviously you aren't that way. Neither of us are going to change because the other person happens to disagree with that. So again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Nope. I can find them but I'm not going to. I'm not doing your homework for you. You can easily scroll through the thread. I thought again you were intelligent and whatnot. Arguing about this has taken more time than it would have for you to scroll through the thread and look for yourself. It could already be done. *shrug* I'm not going to address this again. It's immature.

Rational reason is your own opinion. I may think it's very rational and that's me.

Ah so you were just asking me to provide evidence of shit and now you're telling me to scroll up. :rolleyes: Oh and I can go on and on and on. I'm just getting started.

Why don't you just give it up? You did it before and you're doing it again now, you're not saying anything.

Calling me a "12 year old" was slander and not your opinion.

Violent revolution isn't an opinion, it's fact. You can talk pacifism all day long. I will never be non-violent against a system that is violent towards me, that's just common sense.

Also, fuck Ghandi and Fuck Jesus. One is an overrated racist and the other is a fairy tale.

All of which I quoted from myself were my own arguments about why voting period is worthless. You not being able to come up with anything to refute what I said doesn't make it "bullshit".

A post ago, you said I didn't argue with you at all, and now you're changing your tune? I'll take your refusal to show where you at all participated in the discussion an admission that you can not find one.

I never said I was "all that" or attempted to say my opinion was better than anyone else. This whole thing started because you disagreed with me, yet didn't tell me one rational reason why you did.

Nice job trying to play the damsel in distress at the end, as if I specifically picked you out, it's an excellent strategy.

Seriously, scroll the fuck up, it's all there. How long do you intend to carry this on?

Sankofa

24th February 2008, 04:47

And you think you're saying something? LOL. :laugh:

No hon it WAS my opinion. Which again is why I asked how old you were. Didn't you read it? I asked you how old you were, twelve? I asked to find out hon. :rolleyes: God are you fucking grasping for straws.

No hon it's not common sense. It's your opinion. My opinion is it doesn't work. MLK agreed too.... With this we'd just have to agree to disagree. I'm not a violent person and if I do hurt someone whether I mean to or not I always feel horrible afterwards (the whole guilt thing). That's just me and obviously you aren't that way. Neither of us are going to change because the other person happens to disagree with that. So again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Nope. I can find them but I'm not going to. I'm not doing your homework for you. You can easily scroll through the thread. I thought again you were intelligent and whatnot. Arguing about this has taken more time than it would have for you to scroll through the thread and look for yourself. It could already be done. *shrug* I'm not going to address this again. It's immature.

Rational reason is your own opinion. I may think it's very rational and that's me.

Ah so you were just asking me to provide evidence of shit and now you're telling me to scroll up. :rolleyes: Oh and I can go on and on and on. I'm just getting started.

Didn't you just start a thread and send a PM in an attempt to squash this? It doesn't matter to me either, I can go all night.

What I won't do is argue about petty bullshit, so I'm not even going to touch on the slander thing.

Your opinion is that violence doesn't work? That's just sad, I hope you don't ask me to give examples on why you're wrong.

While I admire MLK deeply in the fact that he gave his life for his people, his opinions on non-violence were foolish. Having sit-ins and marches when you're getting beaten, raped and nooses thrown around your neck doesn't make sense.

I've read your posts, and I don't see it. I did your research when you, ahem, lied and said I never tried to argue with you, so I'm not even going to bother.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 05:35

Well it's apparent I posted this before that so yea and everything there. As I said in my last PM I'm just from now on going to ignore the crap so go with that PM.

So the violence in Iraq, Afghainstan and Palestine is working? :confused: Sorry but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm sure violence does work in some cases but not every case out there.

Well I do see where you're coming from on MLK and sure that's true too. It did work in the south however but the north was a different situation all together. I guess with me I see there's a time and a place for violence but I prefer to leave the violence as a very last resort. I mean hell I'm even against the death penalty so what do you expect?

Uhm hon some of your quotes you did weren't really arguments. That's all based on opinions. You may think you're arguing and I may think you're not. Again one of those "eye of the beholder" sort of things where we'll have to agree to disagree. Sadly I can't stay up all night long. I do need my beauty sleep. ;)

Didn't you just start a thread and send a PM in an attempt to squash this? It doesn't matter to me either, I can go all night.

What I won't do is argue about petty bullshit, so I'm not even going to touch on the slander thing.

Your opinion is that violence doesn't work? That's just sad, I hope you don't ask me to give examples on why you're wrong.

While I admire MLK deeply in the fact that he gave his life for his people, his opinions on non-violence were foolish. Having sit-ins and marches when you're getting beaten, raped and nooses thrown around your neck doesn't make sense.

I've read your posts, and I don't see it. I did your research when you, ahem, lied and said I never tried to argue with you, so I'm not even going to bother.