Democrats Don’t Care about You

Public Service Announcement: You don’t need political analysts; just read the news. Singular lines of news suffice at times. You are now in the post-analytic age.

Here is a one-liner from a Yahoo! News piece on the recent passage of the Snoops-R-Us bill in the Senate: “Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter.”

That one sentence tells you all you need to know about where Obama and most Democrats stand on the issue of civil liberties and what political leaders are not willing to do to protect those liberties. Now, that should be enough to make you withdraw your support from Obama’s presidency — if, that is, you still have illusions about the Democrats in general, and Barak Obama in this round of Anybody-But-Bush/McCain.

“What?” says you, “And let McCain win the election?”

To that it must be said: What on earth is the difference when the Democratic presidential nominee, during the election campaign, votes in the same way as a right-wing Republican not just on any bill, but on a bill curtailing people’s civil liberties?

Of course, Obama, being a smooth political operator, made a mountain out of his molehill of an ‘opposition’ to the bill, by supporting an amendment to the bill that would have removed the telecom’s immunity, but when the amendment failed, he simply dropped the ball on the whole thing and plainly didn’t care enough to vote No (only symbolically mind you, since its passage was assured tremendously by the rest of the Democratic corporate lackeys masquerading as people’s representatives).

This, in an election year, is highly telling, if not plain astonishing. It is customary for Democratic politicians to pull symbolically left-leaning gestures during the presidential campaign seasons, to prove this or that credential with this or that constituency that has real and therefore left-leaning needs. So, one would have expected Obama to move slightly to the left of the right end of the political spectrum, if only for just a quick photo op.

As the presumptive nominee, he could have rallied all the Democrats into a cohesive voting block to stop this further erosion of people’s civil liberties; he would have raised his political capital by millions. One would have expected fiery speeches in support of a change from the totalitarian path set by the Bush administration to a situation where people’s rights were restored, secured and hopefully expanded. Instead, this Democratic candidate has been proving his right-wing credentials one after another.

First, he made it clear he’s all for the intensification of the Afghan war; he has announced an indefinite open season on Pakistani soil and airspace; he has announced he will uphold Israel’s strategic supremacy in the Middle East (read, barbaric oppression of Palestinians, and indefinite bullying rights against Arab neighbors); now he has shown that he will go along with governmental infinite access to all households in the U.S. Obama does not defend the constitution, and he is a constitutional lawyer?

If Obama cannot even make a show or a pretense of a defense of people’s rights when he is not the president, I for one am vastly fearful of what he is capable of doing when/if he is the president!

Here is a classic, textbook case of a man simply and purely hungry for power and willing to do anything to get to it; a man who is beholden to the same exact lobbies that control the Republicans, the Congress and the Executive branch and a man who does not shy away from curtailing, in broad daylight, people’s rights and safety from arbitrary government search and seizure.

What more proof does anybody need to conclude that Obama is just as bad and harmful for the well being of the Americans (and others) as is McCain or Bush? Your vote for one or the other makes no difference. Voting for either is the same as throwing your voting ballot in the toilet. Political hacks that throw away people’s rights and their protections against arbitrary governance do not deserve to be elected at all.

If you want real change and you think voting can bring some change, then know this: the only difference you can make by voting is casting a protest vote. Tell the establishment they don’t represent you in a written, documented form.

Write in your own name on the ballot; better, write in your grandmother’s name. Stop handing blank checks to a government that is so plainly bent on screwing you. Stop being slaves. At least spit back in their face. Don’t waste your vote, don’t waste the only political force you can legally exercise, and don’t waste your voice; vote for Nader, vote for McKinney, for anybody but the establishment boys.

53 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. rosemarie jackowski said on July 12th, 2008 at 8:22am #

    N A D E R I S T H E O N L Y H O P E !

  2. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 10:35am #

    Nader was the hope in 2004 however he was abandoned by the left. Do we really need another “Democrats Don’t Care About You” article. The fact is that the reason for Obama’s emergence was directly cause by the void created by the left.

    Nader in 2008 is in a much weaker state than he was in both 2000 and 2004. Nader in 2004 enjoyed the momentum from the anti-war movement in 2003 -2004 and practically begged the left NOT to demobilize that effort.

    The left chose to demobilize the anti-war movement because of the threat it pose in exposing Zionism as a major cause not only of the 9-11 attacks but of the drive for war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That was risk the “left” did not want to take. Thus the emergence of ABB and the rally behind war-monger John Kerry.

    The real need are for analysis of how to weed out Zionism on the left. There is clearly a lack of trust and dishonesty that needs to be addressed and confronted. Without such there can be no solidarity.

    Nader faced an enormous challenge in 2004 however Nader in 2004 posed a REAL threat especially due to his strong showing in 2000. The obstacle he faced in 2004 was erected not only by the Democrats but also by the “left”. McKinney offers no alternative. Those on the “left” who are piously supporting her ignores her support for the authorization of the War in Afghanistan. But most importantly the Green Party lost ballot lines in 2004 due to the shenanigans of Medea Benjamin, David Cobb, Ted Glick and others ON THE “LEFT”.

    The ISO hasn’t helped and is a major promoter of the “War for Oil” canard that is misinforming the public. They are also against any bridge with the right who have raised similar concern about a foreign policy that has ill-served the country.

    For 2008 Nader and McKinney, had they consolidated their supporter may have offered a real challenge, however divided, both only offers the voter a “protest” vote but no real change.

    As I have written here on DV, in order to weaken the Democrats you need to attract their most loyal constituency — African American. There has been no real effort by the “left” to reach out to blacks. Nader looked foolish when he attacked Obama especially since Nader himself didn’t choose an African American running mate. While Nader does speak eloquently of economic deprivation he really doesn’t have a connection to African Americans. This is why a Nader/McKinney alliance (or ticket) would have sent a powerful message.

    IMO 2008 is a wash. What is needed is some real analysis and soul searching regarding who are the real allies. Who are willing to truly confront Zionism as it is configured and constructed in the United States today and who is willing to tell the American people the truth.

    I’d suggest starting with this article from CounterPunch

  3. bozhidar balkas said on July 12th, 2008 at 11:02am #

    the question is, What is Left in US? what do people on the Left in US stand for?
    in canada, ab 20% of voters r socialist. and if nader run in canada as center socialist, he’d get 20% 0f the votes
    when nader run in US (as socialist?) he got 2-3% of the votes. this time around he may get 6% of the ballots cast.
    it seems to me that in US u guys only have 6% of voters who r socialist or r slightly left/right of our NDP.
    NDP is socialist.
    perhaps the label “left” in US may not mean what the “left” means in canada, UK, france? thank u

  4. bozhidar balkas said on July 12th, 2008 at 11:04am #

    i should have addressed this issue to deadbeat and not rosemarie

  5. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 12:04pm #


    Many articles written that are critical of the Democrats and Obama in particular are written as though there is an certain “expectation” from them and that there will be an obvious betrayal.

    However in 2004, I had a certain “expectation” and hope from the left and saw first hand the betrayal coming directly from the “left”. What is desperately needed is analysis of the state of the “left” in the U.S.

    What does it mean to be on the left? IMO it encompasses the ideals of justice, fairness, equality and democracy. It means promoting solidarity via trust and not expending effort to camouflage and to obscure the truth.

    I’ve come to learn that labels are not important. What is important are the principles. We have “Socialist” in the form of the ISO contributors here on DV who have spend hours on end misinforming the American people regarding the War on Iraq. For example they’ve jump on the recent comment from the “Great Obfuscater” Alan Greenspan in order to promote the lie that the War on Iraq is for Oil primarily to obscure the role of Zionism plays within the United States political economy.

    Other have used the label of “Imperialism” is being bandied about to camouflage the influence of Zionism upon U.S. polity. One recent ISO article for example failed to even mention Project of a New American Century (PNAC) whose sole purpose is to use the U.S. military as proxy for Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

    This deliberate disinformation by members who label themselves “socialist, leftist, and radicals” and other forms of betrayal and diversion is the main reason for the political void that created the conditions for the emergence of Barack Obama.

    However left-wing critics like Glen Ford, who was a huge support of Howard Dean btw in 2004, and even the author ignores the role the left has played in the creation of that void being filled by Obama and the Democrats.

    IMO, Obama is the left’s worst nightmare. In fact one such “left-wing” writer, Adolph Reed, wanted Hillary Clinton to win the nomination.

    It is easy to surmise why the left desired a Clinton primary victory. With the left, in such a terrible state, the only way they can increase their ranks is by attracting disaffected Obama supporters. This strategy may work to some extent should Obama continue his “rightward” drift. This is we will continue to see article like that of Ford and this author’s. But in the larger scheme it is a bankrupted strategy devoid of principles.

    It is a failure because the left is not doing necessary outreach. In order to do outreach you have to have a core set of principles and adhere to the principles of truth and justice. As we have witness from the demobilization of the anti-war movement by the left the “left” as it is currently configured does not adhere to such principles.

    Therefore without knowing your true allies solidarity is extremely retarded in the United States.

    The reason why the Civil Right movement was able to advance in the U.S. was that the people involved were committed and they TRUSTED each other and their leaders. King is revered because the people trusted him. He was a man of principle. The same holds true for Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X. They put principles ahead of any agendas.

    I cannot say the same for the those on the left who are pushing the bullshit known as “War For Oil” or “Imperialism” to obscure a racist and militaristic ideology.

    Canada has it own problems with Zionism as well. We definitely have the Canadian import Naomi Klein profiting off her book “The Shock Doctrine” which is expressly design to deflect the influence and role of Zionism upon the War On Iraq.

  6. hp said on July 12th, 2008 at 12:19pm #

    Canada, AKA, America Jr., is totally in the grasp of the ZPC.
    Harper is an insult to Canadians and people in general.

  7. bozhidar balkas said on July 12th, 2008 at 2:15pm #

    it seems to me u’r talking solely ab american Left. i always thought and think now that the Left in US comprises ab 6% of the voters.
    i do not know how many Leftists r in senate/congress/WH.
    wd a guess of 1% be too much? u’r right ab labels; these don’t elucidate. a middle socialist to me wd be for medicare; against privatization of warfare/governance/army services; for elimination of wmd; free higher education; no private schools and thus no rift in the pop; holding referendums on many issues, etc.
    regarding zionist role in US warfare since ’40s, show me a document in which aipac forces/demands a prez to go to any war and he nilly obeys.
    u offer us no shred of evidence that israel is the maestro.
    in fact, many facts points out that the tiny israel sans minerals/smelters; w. strong econo-military/diplomatic support from the christian world is just that, a helpless tiny criminal statelet that wd never have been established let alone existed for 60 yrs if it wasn’t for christians in the main.
    how cd have israel obtained wmd being so poor? i think this alone tells u who’s in charge. thank u

  8. evie said on July 12th, 2008 at 3:18pm #

    Naomi Kline is a gatekeeper.

    There are no leftists in DC.

    Wars are first and foremost instigated for profit – ideology is second and usually the “cover.”

    I have not trusted, or liked, Communists/Socialists or the “left” for the last 30 years in the US as those I’ve known are a coddled bunch of middle class dabblers, all talk, cliques of backpatters who haven’t a clue as to what’s going on in the minds of those they want to save, uplift, etc.etc. They do not seek sincere honest opinions but expect you to spout the party line as it was written by those old white European guys. They offer no valid solution to any social problem – other than throw more money at more programs that have yet to produce much good. They are as out of touch with “the people” as any and every politician that rides into office to get rich.

    In their effort to make everyone equal they succeeded – as they have made most everyone stupid, vapid, and dependent on the State. They attack everything the State does b/c they want to be the new State. They hold European programs up as something to mimic, scholars and advocates – fops and sops and ivory towers.

    Like I keep saying, we do not a new party, nor a new old face in the WH (Nader,McKinney, etc.) – we need a new “ism.”

  9. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 4:07pm #

    bozhidar writes…

    regarding zionist role in US warfare since ’40s, show me a document in which aipac forces/demands a prez to go to any war and he nilly obeys.
    u offer us no shred of evidence that israel is the maestro.

    Your remarks are the same rebuttal that Max Shields throws out that shifts the focus to Israeli Zionism. That “little tiny Israel” cannot possibly control the U.S. This is bullshit rhetoric used to obscure the role of Zionism upon the U.S. political economy. In fact I offered evidence — see Project for a New American Century or the CounterPunch link or read the article from James Petras posted here on DV.

    Zionism as I have written in the past is an IDEOLOGY and the fact is that IDEOLOGY is prevalent in American politics. It matter nothing whether the ideology emanates from Israel or not. What matters is that it is PRESENT WITHIN the United States and that the ideology is bigoted, racist and militaristic and it is the impetus of the bloated military spending and the current degrading of the U.S. economy. And that is not to even mention the live lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The fact is bozhidar YOU OFFER NO EVIDENCE to support your position.

  10. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 4:12pm #

    bozhidar writes…

    a middle socialist to me wd be for medicare; against privatization of warfare/governance/army services; for elimination of wmd; free higher education; no private schools and thus no rift in the pop; holding referendums on many issues, etc.

    You don’t seen to understand what it means to be a “Leftist”. What you site are perhaps the materialist incarnation of being on the left but that is not what it means to be a “Leftist”. These materialistic aspects could also be supported by a “Liberal”. If you read my previous response to you it enumerates some of the core PRINCIPLES that defines a “Leftist”.

  11. Max Shields said on July 12th, 2008 at 4:18pm #

    bozhidar balkas I think you’re raising some interesting points. One can see what zionism has done without the hyperbolie that Deadbeat enjoys spewing regardless of the topic at hand (makes you wonder). I just have a hard time studying history and reading what he passes off as “truth”.

    But, bozhidar, there is no “left” as such in the US of A. There is what I refer to as DAN (Dominant American Narrative). It’s the Orwellian counterpart to the invisible hand that moves markets. DAN shapes minds, attitudes, and behavior. It’s worked very well with the invention of mass media. We have two identical parties tweaked, mostly by the media, to provide a little show. It’s all Holliwood, nothing more and some time much less.

    It’s conceivable, if polls are any indication, that Nader would have 20% perhaps much more if allowed equal time (that is minus money). Would a progressive/socialist agenda make a difference in the WH? Well again if this president was elected by majority with instant run off he/she would have a true mandate. The question than is what would the Congress look like if the majority of voters voted for Nader? I don’t know. Would, he/she with a mandate be positioned to make deeper change?

    I think the change we need to undertake needs to be much deeper and local. In this sense I agree with evie that changes in the WH cannot provide the fundamental changes needed in 4 to 8 year term.

    I don’t know that isms buy us anything. They’ve shown to be extremely dangerous when manipulated by the powerful. I also think that isms are the ideas we carry that make policy and as such they are very powerful in shaping what has and continues to happen in American foreign policy.

  12. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 4:38pm #


    I agree with much of your sentiment about the Left. However I do think that the State can play a positive role sole long as the people can take control of the power of the State.

    I agree that programs should not make people “wards” of the State. But neither should gov’t programs make people SLAVES of the state. We have over 2MM people in prison and laws such as tax polices and “family” laws and poverty are used more enslave people than to liberate them.

    You are right that we need a new “ism”. I think the core of that “ism” can emanate from principles encompassing fairness, justice, equality and democracy. These principles may be defined differently to various people. However I think they can be define and understood by the struggles against injustice, unfairness, inequality and authoritarianism.

    Zionism today as it is operates within the U.S. has a dominate role influencing U.S. policies. Zionism is the impetus of maintaining the bloated military budget which consume over 50% of all tax dollars and has a strangle hold on the political economy due to its control of both political parties.

    The struggle against Zionism is an extremely difficult one because many of the so-called would be “allies” are not allies at all. I think you know that and eloquently expressed that in your remarks.

  13. Hue Longer said on July 12th, 2008 at 5:20pm #

    I love talking about zionism as much as the next guy, but in every article?

    Evie, Europe ain’t that bad compared to the US–hell, the vikings have it pretty good…maybe they should invade?

  14. Max Shields said on July 12th, 2008 at 5:57pm #

    “I love talking about zionism as much as the next guy, but in every article?”

    Good point!

  15. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:19pm #

    Excellent illustrations Hue and Max apparently condescention is preferable to outright confrontation and honesty.

  16. hp said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:19pm #

    Right out of Orwell.

  17. hp said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:21pm #

    I wonder who gets the role of Winston?

  18. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:23pm #

    And to follow that … The best way to kill the truth and to spread disinformation is the application of condescention by trying to dismiss it as “repetition”.

    Thanks again Hue and Max for illustrating my points about the distrust and dishonesty on the left and why The Left offers no alternative.

  19. Deadbeat said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:26pm #

    Therefore, while efforts to curb speculation in energy markets (through regulation of the largely unregulated futures markets) or buttress the dollar from further declining may sound comforting, such efforts will remain illusive and ineffectual unless the devastating wars and military adventures in the oil-rich Middle East are terminated; that is, unless the root causes of currency depreciation and commodity speculation are exposed and cut out.

    Here again is an excellent article by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh from the weekend edition of CounterPunch.

  20. Hue Longer said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:36pm #


    I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just got the message already on articles about Zionism and not about Zionism— I’m not entirely convinced who the puppet and who the hand is, but you make nice points. There’s other things going on in this article that I don’t think Zionism has anything to do with (if you think it has do with everything, I could see your point in bringing it up everywhere)

    You didn’t have to hit me with the tomato you threw at Max Shields, did you?

  21. Hue Longer said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:40pm #

    i don’t see the animal farm connection, hp…but If someone thinks the USA is the best place on earth to live, they can be Moses

  22. hp said on July 12th, 2008 at 6:42pm #

    Winston Smith, Hue.

  23. Hue Longer said on July 12th, 2008 at 8:23pm #


    heheh, thanks for the correction (Winston is a good name for a pig though, no?)…Still, what again is the connection?

  24. bozhidar balkas said on July 13th, 2008 at 6:08am #

    i offer no evidence that isr isn’t in charge of US policies?
    how ab the fact that palestine has no mines/smelters/steel mills; i.e, is very poor in natural resources?
    and then its pitiful size? how ab the money/arms it receives?
    one wd think that if US is israel’s dependency, isr shld be giving money/arms to US in order to obtain its goodwill/cooperation, etc?
    how ab the wmd? how cld have such a poor land manufactured them?yet, isr had acquired them! how/when? from whom?
    if a party or org wants to control, let’s say, russia, one can be sure that the control of its governance wd be obtained only w. paying or ‘donating’ megabucks to russian politicians, journalists, educators, clergy, et al.
    in other words, control of a land is obtained, aside thru militancy, solely by money.

    in canada we have a LIBERAL party. it is not in favor holding referenda or free higher education.

    and i said what Left means to me. i gather, to u, it means s’mthing diff.
    i think that is ok.
    what does Liberal means in US? is it just the left wing of the one goose? that’s how i see it.

    i have already stated that zionism is after nazism the worst plague we had to face to date.
    and i keep on saying that zionists were not semitic volk but an euro-asian people who latched onto judaism/zionism in order to establish in palstn state of their own.
    with their beliefs in supremacism they couldn’t get along w. any descent volk, that’s why they wanted a state of their own. thank u

  25. Max Shields said on July 13th, 2008 at 8:30am #

    “Excellent illustrations Hue and Max apparently condescention is preferable to outright confrontation and honesty”

    I’ve confronted your posts time and again. Your response? Nothing.

    Since your posts are repeated diatribes, I see no reason to repeat my confrontations ad infinitum. I’ll let you worry about honesty.

  26. Thomas Mc said on July 13th, 2008 at 9:22am #

    Barack Obama has proven that he cannot be trusted. Period.

  27. Deadbeat said on July 13th, 2008 at 9:25am #

    I’ve confronted your posts time and again. Your response? Nothing.

    Apparently you’ve choose not to read.

    Since your posts are repeated diatribes, I see no reason to repeat my confrontations ad infinitum. I’ll let you worry about honesty

    And thus the fallacy of your response. When you have no counterpoint then degrade the debate using the same tired tactic of condescention and ridicule.

    I guess James Petras, Jeffrey Blankfort, Ismael Hossein-Zadeh are all engaging in as you say “repeated diatribes” or is it you Max with your “little tiny Israel cannot possibly control big bad USA” rhetoric which you use to obscure and camouflage how Zionism (a racist and militaristic ideology) has become the major influence within the U.S. political economy.

    The question is why would anyone on the LEFT embrace such behavior unless they themselves are in fact dishonest regarding their professed principles. This is the primary reason why solidarity WILL NOT be achieved.

  28. Max Shields said on July 13th, 2008 at 9:55am #


    You’re beating a dead horse. Even Petras is not a total johnny one note like you are.

  29. Deadbeat said on July 13th, 2008 at 10:26am #

    You’re beating a dead horse. Even Petras is not a total johnny one note like you are.

    And Max apparently since you have no serious rejoinders you have to engage in ad hominum. If you disagree I invite you to make a cogent argument. Ad hominum’s are FALLACIES and apparently your last resort.

  30. Max Shields said on July 13th, 2008 at 12:31pm #

    Deadbeat, the only reponse you appear willing to give is to ad hominums.

    I’ve made case after case regarding your “zionist” conflation with American foreign policy. I’ve made it clear that AIPAC has been a dominant voice in the halls of congress and with those now running for President. In fact, I have not heard the kind of vehement genuflection Obama recently showed with total disregard for the Palestinian people by any other previous candidate for POTUS. Yet, I don’t hear a peep out of you. Instead you offer all kinds of red herrings about Kucinich and McKinney.

    You overlook the complexity of the way US history has unfolded, particularly during the “Cold War”. That “War” was fought on many fronts in many countries. Israel was but a small albeit important imperial ally in the ME where the struggle between the Soviets and US was played out. But look at Africa, Asia, Latin America…there were no zionist in those confrontations. PNAC and neoconservatives have hung around over the last few decades, but most militarists in the Nixon, Ford, even Carter, and certainly Reagan and Bush I were not necons. Neocons were simply one incarnation of this militarist and American exceiptionalism – also used by Israel but not only Israel.

    The kind of militarist advisors in US administrations have existed since this country’s inception.

    When the Cold War rivalry ended, US policies continued in the form of terrorism. But regardless beneath all of this is hegemony – who owns/controls regions throughout the world. Militarists and Terrorists are all the same but they are not ideologues. They simply mark the preferred choice of doing battle. Soft power has been just as brutal but less noticeably so.

    The USA is the number one terrorist nation in the world. This country has either directly or indirectly rained terror on millions and millions of civilians and children throughout the globe.

    Most of this history has nothing to do with Israel or zionism.

  31. bozhidar balkas said on July 13th, 2008 at 1:55pm #

    max, deadbeat, et al
    in short:
    uncle sam will not give away its beloved bride, america.
    and israel is just a small part of her. tho she may be one day abandoned or made less significant.

    i see deadbeat has not replied to my post containing evidence that not only shows but proves that israel is a christian dependency; it manifestly is not the other way around.
    christains r not afraid of judaists; judaists r frightened by clazy christians; especially amer christians

  32. Edwin Pell said on July 13th, 2008 at 5:47pm #

    Dems like repubs care about power and money for themselves.

  33. Rich Griffin said on July 14th, 2008 at 9:51am #

    I listened to Cynthia McKinney’s acceptance speech over the weekend 3 times – I agreed with her 100%. The same can be said for Ralph Nader. I don’t care about winning, I care about movement building. I don’t care about viability – that particular Catch-22 is a waste of time to even discuss. I am angry at Obama apologists/voters! Drop him & vote for McKinney or Nader!! We can get the percentages UP if people will just drop their support for the dishonorable Barack Obama.

  34. Arch Stanton said on July 14th, 2008 at 2:26pm #

    Viva McKinney!

    BTW people–does everything posted on DV relate to zionism in some way? Just asking.

  35. Hue Longer said on July 15th, 2008 at 1:18am #


  36. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 9:37am #

    ?Let’s see what the score is:

    1) In the past few decades, the people of the US have become poorer, more miserable and more desperate, while the rich and the powerful have become more so. Ralph Nader, the so called champion of the downtrodden has become (or maybe always was) a multimillionaire, while the downtrodden have become more downtrodden. (How can a multimillionaire empathize and commiserate with the downtrodden and the dirt-poor, how can he even see their problems as his own — assuming that’s what he wants to do, which is highly doubtful?) So at the very least, he was not effective; more likely he was not working for the downtrodden but for himself.

    2) In the past few decades, the union bosses have become fabulously rich, while the workers have become progressively poorer and more downtrodden. These bosses employed the unions in the service of the organized crime (the mafia), (of course they received rich kickbacks for that), so the multimillionaires in charge of those organizations could get even richer (off ripping ALL of us off) while the workers got poorer and their reputation was put in the toilet. But the union bosses pulled salaries of half a mill per year, while the workers don’t have enough to eat; and the unions have been all but destroyed now, from the time when close to 70% of the workforce was unionized.

    3) In the past few decades, lawyering has exploded in the US, ostensibly to make this a more just and lawful society. (Ralphie boy is a lawyer, remember?) The result is that the majority of people are more miserable, downtrodden and poor than ever before. Not only are they economically oppressed as never before, but their families have been broken up. The fathers have been told that they are criminals and that they can never lay eyes on their own children. All kinds of laws have
    been invented that oppress the people, while making it easier for the rich and the powerful to skirt the laws, to subvert people’s taxes into their own pockets, to not pay taxes themselves, and to oppress the people. Meanwhile, the lawyers themselves have become fabulously rich and filthy rich.

    4) In the past few decades, all kinds of organizations, government and non-government have sprung up (Ralphie boy had a few), all kinds of projects to help the poor and the downtrodden and to generally help the people. As a result, the people have become poorer and more
    downtrodden and oppressed, while those heading up such organizations and projects have made off with fabulous fortunes.

    5) In the past few decades, all kinds of organizations have sprung up to “help the environment” (Ralphie boy had a few). The result has been a general degradation of the environment, logging, etc., asthma has exploded, cancer has exploded, while the persons heading up those organizations have made off with fabulous fortunes.

    6) In the past few decades, all kinds of money has been poured into medical research and into medicine. The result has been that our health is the worst it’s ever been and people cannot afford even routine medical care. Instead, people are locked in dead-end jobs, having nightmares about the same, just to be assured of medical care. People cannot afford to buy medicine, which are several times cheaper in Canada and Europe. But the doctors and the pharma have made off like
    the bandits that they are.

    7) In the past few decades, all kinds of awareness and organizations have sprung up, so that we would eat healthy foods and be healthy. The result is that our foods are polluted, most of what’s in the supermarket is loaded with carcinogenic chemicals and plastics and who knows what
    witches stew of chemicals. The people are dying off but the others heading up these organizations have become filthy rich, going through the revolving doors between the regulators and the regulated.

    Etc., etc., etc. I think the score is clear on those who want to “help” us, whether in government or out, who represent themselves as people’s “crusaders”. They are in reality self-serving pirates to put it very, very mildly in polite company.

    Full circle back to Ralphie boy. He doesn’t need to worry about the price of gas. He doesn’t need to worry about the roof over his head. His opinion of the people he wants to “serve” is pretty bleak. When he moved to a pristine place in California, he made the local powers that be
    pass a law that henceforth no-one else could move in there – just so Ralphie boy could enjoy nature without the pesky unwashed masses. He rails against corporations, but he himself owns them; and treats his employees like chattel, paying them slave wages, not paying overtime while demanding it, calling them up at 1am on weekends to talk shop, having meetings at 7am. Employing lies, demagoguery and fear-mongering over decades in his various projects and campaigns – I imagine because the other side does too — well that’s the excuse; the real reasons are more self-serving. (OK, he wrote that book on the auto industry, that was good, but that was FORTY YEARS AGO). Well, then you’ve become the other side, when you employ such methods, and the people, wisely, don’t trust him (except for the 5% deluded ones); so again, he’ll get 5% (not of the population, but of those that go to the polls) and that will be declared a “victory”. And for whatever it’s worth, McKinney wisely didn’t want to play second fiddle to this, so that’s in the plus column for her, along with a bunch of other things she’s done; however, being associated with “progressives”, whatever the color, is NOT in the plus column.

    We’ve had quite a few “victories” in the past few decades, haven’t we? (I mean we the people, I am not part of the “progressive” joke movement). Not much diff between Ralphie boy and the others, as far as I’m concerned. WAKE UP!!!!!

  37. bozhidar balkas said on July 15th, 2008 at 9:52am #

    u r doing lostsof of mind reading, conjecturing, etc.
    i do not know what nader feels/thinks. and i’m not going to ask him how much he cares ab working class.
    for now i pay attention solely what he’s done and said. i like what he says now.
    unfortunately he wont get elected. if and when he gets elected and has the chance to do things then i can judge his labors.

  38. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 10:46am #

    “u r doing lostsof of mind reading, conjecturing, etc.”

    no i am not. i am going by what he’s done and said (over 2-3 decades), about things that i know a thing or two about. i’ve seen his tactics of fear mongering, distortions and lying first hand. and i’ve listed a couple instances of questionable behavior up above.

    “for now i pay attention solely what he’s done and said.”

    obviously, you’re either not very critical, or are not very cognizant.

  39. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 10:47am #

    ?Bozhidar, here are some figures. As you can see, iron ore, smelting capacity, etc., has NOTHING to do with a country’s relative wealth and power. As a matter of fact, Japan, as an example, is not endowed with mineral wealth of any kind, whether iron ore, or oil or whatever else (that’s why it fought in WW2). (Do a search on “iron production by country”).

    Iron production (2006):

    China 11 times the US
    UK last on sorted (highest to lowest) Wiki list (45th) only 1,000 tonnes (i.e., effectively zero)
    Swizerland not on the list
    (Russia, Ukraine, India ahead of the US)
    Japan not on the sorted list
    Oz 4 times more than the US
    Finland, Denmark, France not on the list
    North Korea ahead of Germany, Austria, South Korea (by a lot)
    Zimbabwe ahead of UK and Germany

    Iron ore (2004):

    Egypt ahead of France and Germany
    Japan only 1,000 tons
    China import 2/3 of its ore
    US imports 1/3
    Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey ahead of Germany, France, UK, etc.
    Ukraine ahead of the US

    Steel (2007):

    China more than US, EU and Japan combined
    India more than France, Germany, UK
    Egypt more than Sweden
    Turkey more than France

  40. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 10:55am #

    ….and i’m going by the results, as stated above:

    his so called campaigns for the people or people’s interest have resulted in people being more poor and oppressed (and depressed), while he has become/is a multimillionaire. maybe they did not do so directly, but that’s the end result. (and indirectly that’s the result because people see he can’t be trusted). so at the least he hasn’t been more effective. but you can’t be effective when you don’t have the truth on your side, when you use the tactics of your enemies.

    and i don’t know how on earth a multimillionaire can represent the people, even if his heart were in the right place (which it is not, as stated above). you have to rise FROM the people and see all their troubles first hand.

    tell me which exact facts enumerated above you quarrel with. what did i misrepresent as the state of affairs in the us (not in your canada, here in the us).

  41. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 10:59am #

    give me one example of my “mind reading” and “conjecturing”.

  42. bozhidar balkas said on July 15th, 2008 at 12:47pm #

    i paraphrase, “how can nader, being a multimillionair, empathise w. the down trodden”
    altho this statement is couched as a question, i, nevertheless, evaluate it as an averment; i.e, he cannot feel anything/zilch for the downtrodden.
    to me, that is mind reading.
    one cannot ever know what nader feels ab the working people. now that u have ‘proven’ that nader is a fake when it comes to caring for the poor, u go on and say that he is a lawyer.
    u assert lawyers don’t care. this too is mind reading.
    in add’n u’d have to know every lawyer in america in order to prove or show that each is uncaring, money grabbing; causes misery, etc.
    by blaming solely lawyers for all of the ills in US, u let politicians, rich shareholders, generals, clergy off the hook.
    u say that i’m not cognizant ab what ralph has done and said. ok, this is true.
    i only know so much. i don’t know all ab myself let alone u or ralph. however, for me to accept ur judgment of him, u’d have to supply me w. all of his sayings and document all his doings before i say that u’r right.
    thank u

  43. bozhidar balkas said on July 15th, 2008 at 1:08pm #

    there r couple of people on dv who insist that Israel/zionism/ aipac control america.
    u rightly point out that japan is resource-poor country. i’m saying that israel is poor land. it’s also much smaller than japan.
    my point is that israel is a dependency of christian lands and empires.
    it always had been.
    zionist illegal immigration into palestine was approved and helped by christians and communists.
    left to their own devices, zionists wd have been defeated long time ago.
    i’v said this oft: it’s christian world that controls israel; it’s not the other way around.
    i’m not saying that israel isn’t a rich country. nor do i know how it became rich. of course US helps isr financiallyso do ashkenazim. may be also some christians.
    if s’mbody wants to enlighten me how isr became rich, he/she is welcome to do that.
    i do not have time to delve into everything. and for my purposes, it doesn’t matter
    thank u

  44. hp said on July 15th, 2008 at 3:51pm #

    bozhidar, not that it matters…
    It’s only trillions of dollars.

  45. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 8:22pm #

    ?“how ab the fact that palestine has no mines/smelters/steel mills; i.e, is very poor in natural resources? and then its pitiful size?”

    True, but they have the “poor” palestine because they robbed it from the indigenous population. And no, it’s not so poor. During the roman times, the phoenicians were here with their trading empire (a very big, successful and PROFITABLE empire), as well as the jews later on. What
    does the size have to do with anything – the roman empire started from the city of rome.

    “ how ab the money/arms it receives?
    one wd think that if US is israel’s dependency, isr shld be giving money/arms to US in order to obtain its goodwill/cooperation, etc?”

    No, it’s exactly the other way around. You’ve just “proven” the other side’s point. It’s a misnomer, but it’s the “dependency”, i.e., the colony, which sends the money and the resources to the colonizing country, not the other way round. Who benefitted more from colonization of africa
    and india – the africans and the indians or the british? If the former, then why would the british go to the trouble of colonizing? Same with the roman colonies. The mother country takes the resources out of the colonies. That is the whole point – our resources and our interests are being subverted for israeli interests.

    “how ab the wmd? how cld have such a poor land manufactured them?yet, isr had acquired them! how/when? from whom?”

    They acquired the nuclear weapons (the design thereof) from the french. The israelis and the french had collaborated on the design of the french weapon when france first broke into the nuclear club, circa 1960. So, they acquired the design from the french (remember, a few years earlier the french, the british and the israelis invaded the suez (egypt) and who stopped them – america did, but that was before the time of aipac, etc.). Once you have the design, then you just follow it to
    make the actual weapons – the 200 or so the israelis have. That’s not hard to do, once you have the special reactor for making the special mix of plutonium isotopes that you need for a weapon But the israelis have that (the dimona reactor) and all the other concomitant technologies.

    So the short story is, they acquired the design from the french and built the weapons themselves — they had all they needed. The americans were not in on it (those were the times when america was an independent country, not in the grips of aipac), as a matter of fact they sent several inspection teams to the dimona facility in the 60s to make sure all was above board. But they were fooled. The israelis bricked over the elevator doors and the staircases leading to the incriminating
    parts of the plant, for the duration of the inspections, and made it appear the walls were there instead.

    And why are you calling israel a “poor land”? Because they don’t have iron ore? Their standard of living is up there with the developed world. Making steel is not the only way of generating income, of powering an economy. They have desalination plants. They made the desert bloom.
    They have all kinds of military aircraft, a huge number of them, and sophisticated weaponry of every kind. They have a mature and sophisticated weapons industry (ever heard of an Uzi machine gun, but that’s just the start). They have this nuclear research facility and the know-how and the technology of making nuclear weapons.

    And why would a “poor land” be a poor candidate for developing the bomb, anyway? China was dirt poor when it developed and tested its weapons. So was the Soviet Union for that matter. India and Pakistan – the same thing. North Korea – the poorest of the poor. Are you saying
    North Korea is not as poor as Israel? What does poor have to do with wmd?

    “if a party or org wants to control, let’s say, russia, one can be sure that the control of its governance wd be obtained only w. paying or ‘donating’ megabucks to russian politicians, journalists, educators, clergy, et al. in other words, control of a land is obtained, aside thru militancy, solely by money.”

    Well, again, you’re proving the other guy’s point. This is EXACTLY how it’s done in america, too. A politician can’t win if they run afoul of aipac. And it’s true of american politics in general, or any other country. You can say — extending your argument wrt israel and aipac, there are 300 million people here, or 200 million plus voters, so how can people’s interests be subverted by a small minority of the rich and the powerful, of the corporations and the like. Well, it’s done just
    like you said it – through money, through megabucks, and not only in russia, but right here in the usa. So who’s the dog, who’s the tail when you talk about the special interests vs. the american people? The size of an entity doesn’t determine who wins, it’s more the matter of the “brains” and the organization and the money. If a politician says something or does something against israel (like bush the elder did), aipac with its deep pockets will run advertisements for his opponent. They can dig the dirt on people. They can hire consultants to distort the facts and falsify and tug at the voters hearts with the right pitch. They will buy the right people, they have the organization, the machinery down pat. They say bush I lost to clinton due to aipac. And it’s
    all intermingled now – the us businessmen have connections through aipac, etc., our politicians, and would be politicians and businessmen and lawyers work a stint in israel for the israeli govt – which is an offense, if done for any other country, which will LOSE you your american citizenship, but not in the case of israel.

    Last time we had an arab american in congress – abourezk, was in the 80s. Last time a president said no to israel was in the 80s early 90s. During reagan, when israel bombed osirak (the iraqi nuclear reactor) the us vigorously protested, maybe even introduced a resolution at the un. This would be unthinkable now. Just because it was a certain way a long time ago doesn’t mean it’s that way now. This cancer of aipac is growing, enveloping more and more with its tentacles. No, it’s not the only problem in america, but it’s a huge problem in an important sphere – a big chunk of our foreign policy (and a big chunk of our morality — endorsing subjugation and horrible oppression of a people who had their land, their property STOLEN from them); and it’s growing,
    so maybe one day it will be ALL our foreign policy, and after that who knows maybe it will envelop the domestic policy as well. Maybe the day will come when we’ll send all our taxes straight to israel.

    Tell me, do israeli presidential/prime minister candidates, and their members of Knesset, come before an american lobbying organization in israel to make speeches of their undying love for america and of their intention to make america’s interests primary and israeli interests secondary? Do they come to america to compete who will be a better friend to the americans? Does any other country do that with respect to another country — i am sure even al-maliki (the iraqi PM) would never stoop so low wrt america? No, it’s the other way around — our politicians do this in regards to israel and aipac. Did the Roman emperors go to Armenia to pledge allegiance to Armenia and their emperor (installed by Rome) or was it the other way around?

  46. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 8:37pm #

    i am not saying that all lawyers are bad, nor that they are solely responsible for all that ails us — as a matter of fact i mentioned several other factors, and even then it’s not a complete list; read what i said. i simply stated the fact that we had an explosion in the number of lawyers and at the same time diminution in our rights, quality of life, leveling the playing field between the rich and the poor, etc., i.e., exactly the opposite of what the lawyers are supposed to accomplish.

    so, looking strictly at those results, the lawyers have been a negative influence overall, notwithstanding the fact that not ALL of them were bad, of course.

    and similarly for all the other categories i listed.

    as for nader tactics, as an example, read the recent article by w. blum on patriotism — i commented extensively on it. (i know blum isn’t nader, but this is an example of the tactics). on the surface, all looks OK and you agree with everything, but when you dig you see it’s fraught through and through with distortions, falsehoods, inventions and the like.

    “one atom of plutonium will kill you” — sound familiar — well one of nader’s tactics.

    and i’m pointing to results. as for millionaires knowing what ails common folk, no they can’t do it unless they live among common folk and have the same problems. i have nothing against them, except i’d like a little EQUALITY: right now, all (or nearly all) members of congres, the senators, the president, in the state houses too, they are all millionaires representing millionaires’ interests. i want them to pay their fair share and their taxes and stop screwing us, and i’d like to be represented by someone other than a millionaire, and not have the govt by millionaires for millionaires. if you don’t know why millionaires can’t have a clue what it’s like to be a common person then i can’t help you.

  47. john wilkinson said on July 15th, 2008 at 8:41pm #

    “The mother country takes the resources out of the colonies.”

    of course, i am only saying this to show that you proved nothing. i know we also give money to a bunch of other countries. e.g., egypt, and we’re definitely not a colony of egypt. but we are acting like a colony of israel, and what you said doesn’t disprove it.

  48. bozhidar balkas said on July 16th, 2008 at 6:33am #

    ur piece is interesting reading.
    ab korea’s resources and help it may or may have not obtained in acquiring wmd, i know next to nothing .
    this means we need more study of korea before we can talk ab it.
    zionists in ’46 didn’t even have enough weapons to wage a war against the indigenes.
    at that moment they were utterly helpless. it was czecho-slovakia which supplied zionists w. weapons.
    france, of course, was not israeli colony and thus did not have to supply isr w. wmd and the best aircraft.
    isr continuously depends on US vetos to avoid penalties or even wars against it.
    remember, sssr was helping cuba. was sssr a colony of cuba?
    “what does being poor (add to it small/friendless/w. mighty enemies) w. wmd?”
    well, does nepal, lebanon, rwanda,algeria, sudan, et al have them?
    u say i have proven that US is an israeli colony! in many of my posts i say that it is not only uncle sam who supports israel in so many ways but also all or nearly all world plutocrats.
    why? because israel was the first stepping stone to all of asia. how can it be that UK, France, Germany, canada, US, japan r subservient to a tiny land w. miserable resources.
    isr even has to steal water.
    if friendship or nonfriendship did not matter, then what palestine, iraq, iran go thru at the hands israel’s colonies is mainly because these r terrorits lands and deserve everything they get.
    aipac is being used. it probably gives or ‘donates’ money/gifts, etc. to politicians. nat, politicians take it.
    but the uncle sam does not take bribes. he, take bribes, and lose control of his beloeved bride? nah!

  49. Max Shields said on July 16th, 2008 at 5:10pm #

    bozhidar balkas you have a much keener sense of how unipowers work than do these “US is a puppet of Israel” posters on DV.

    To understand US power and how it’s been deployed and documented throughout much of its history is how you understand what is going on in the world, vis-a-vis the American Empire.

    Obama genuflects to AIPAC and it’s not poor Obama that’s to blame for sticking it to Palestinians with his talk of an undivided Jeruselum. It’s the “power of AIPAC”. I would say that it is more about Obama than it is about the power of AIPAC.

    Such conclusions miss 4 hundred years of Western/American imperial history. As if we never killed 3 million Vietnamese men, women and children…you know. When raw empire power is not understood it leads to false conclusions like “Zionists run the US foreign policy”. Israeli leader as well as generations of US leaders are clearly war criminals; but it is the US who just as clearly holds the record on war crimes.

  50. john wilkinson said on July 17th, 2008 at 9:26am #

    ?Some quotes:

    “I really believe that, in an uncommonly focused way, AIPAC is able to get a result for the safety, security and economic wellbeing of Israel that no other organization can do…”
    ——Seth “Yossi” Siegel, AIPAC Northeast Regional Council Chair
    taken from the AIPAC webpage. This person is an American citizen who doesn’t give a hoot about America (not a word about America and its wellbeing and its interests and safety and security), but it’s Israel ueber alles and Israel only. He should be doing hard time for TREASON, as well as a bunch of our politicians.

    I do not know how you can state things from the sideline when you don’t know what is going on HERE. Imagine this is happening in Canada, and let’s keep Israel out of this, let’s say a Canadian person from the mgmt of a big, powerful organization says the above about – I don’t know, Indonesia, or Japan, or Sierra Leone. Wouldn’t that be extremely disconcerting, especially if it involved YOUR money, AND your TAXES and YOUR wellbeing and security that is being traded away for this other country?

    A couple of quotes from Wikipedia:

    In September 2007, Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia (who has been criticized by Jewish organization on several occasions) stated that the Jewish community as a whole and AIPAC, in particular, drove the United States toward the war in Iraq. Moran noted that AIPAC is “the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power.” Moran later issued an APOLOGY for his comments.

    In 2006, the New York Review of Books published a letter from Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota to AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr. In the letter, McCollum demanded an
    apology from AIPAC after McCollum says that, in a recent phone conversation with her chief of staff, that an AIPAC representative told him that “Congresswoman McCollum’s support for terrorists will not be tolerated,” after Representative McCollum voted against H.R. 4681
    (Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006). McCollum stated that AIPAC representatives will not be allowed in her office until she receives a written apology for the comment. The AIPAC rep denied the accusation and would not issue an apology. Kohr requested a meeting to talk it over. McCollum’s voting had shown support for Israel and senior activists in Minnesota’’s Jewish community and congressional staffers who know her well describe her as a supporter. McCollum has since DECLARED THE INCIDENT OVER.

    So, here we have a couple of congressmen who DARED put forth a mild criticism of AIPAC – I am surprised that they mustered even that much courage (mild compared to the outrages perpetrated by AIPAC theretofore), and who had to APOLOGIZE or stand back and swallow

    Another quote from Wiki:

    “[It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan’s] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia, and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC’s executive director — not Congressional leaders — to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate”.

    So, here we have an organization who have a VETO power over the US foreign policy. Where presidents and their cabinet have to sit down with AIPAC and mollify AIPAC and ask AIPAC for permission. Who is the vassal here and who’s calling the shots? And this says nothing about the espionage cases AGAINST the US that they have been involved in. Nothing about their people being in all levels of government (incl. the military) for both parties.

    In1992, AIPAC president David Steiner was forced to resign after he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner claimed that he had met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. “I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they’re looking for the Jewish votes, and I’ll tell him whatever he wants to hear … Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don’t even know about.
    Steiner also claimed to be “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had “a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters… in Little Rock, and they’re all going to get big jobs.”
    Haim Katz told The Washington Times that he taped the conversation because “as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate
    clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it.”

    So, even the Jewish people within the organization – the smart ones, the ones who have their priorities and allegiances straight, and who care about the long term effects on the Jews, see that this is a cancer that must be stopped.

    This organization has 100,000 members, who are on average very wealthy (bankers and such). 100,000 lobbyists – when 100 lobbyists for a cause is considered huge. And that doesn’t include the crazy theocrats who spew bible bullshit, and the end of times bullshit and who have large, powerful organizations. I don’t see what the supposed “poverty” of Israel (a ridiculous concept – those same bankers immigrated there, too) has anything to do with this.

  51. john wilkinson said on July 17th, 2008 at 9:47am #

    “As if we never killed 3 million Vietnamese men, women and children…”

    yes we did. but what does that have to do with how our mideast policy has been hijacked by a foreign power? that is ONE of the MANY serious problems — it shouldn’t be discussed because you say so? only problems that suit your fancy should be discussed?

    show me where i’m stating that this is the only problem — my posts above contain numerous other examples; but it is a huge concern when pretty much ALL our “leaders” (not just Obama, and not just now) have to kneel before reps of a foreign power and go to a foreign power to pledge allegiance to it. this pretty much tells us how little control we have, and how it’s not just aipac but special interests in general who have their ear. but this genuflecting be4 aipac is a perfect example of this larger problem — they do this with the other special interests, too, though not so much in public. this is but an EXAMPLE of what is wrong here. how do you think it came to pass that we killed those 3 mill in vietnam — was it done with full consultation and agreement from the people, were the FACTS presented as they were not as someone wished them to be? And here, in DV, are FACTS presented as they are instead to suit someone’s pet theories?

    And while i recognize that this is not the only problem, i am also a bit taken aback that, while posters generally recognize that there are many PROBLEMS, to them only one SOLUTION exists: Ralph Nader. It’s no solution at all, IMHO, but just like you’re tired of some posters Israel this Israel that, I’m tired of — whatever the subject that comes up, it’s Ralph this and Ralph that. So, take some of your own medicine wrt being in a mental rut and seeing things only one way.

    And so, it’s OK to forget about the millions of Palestinians, Iraq and all the other injustices in ME and our contribution/cause to/of them, and how we enable that, because we also did all those other things? It’s OK to forget how we are bankrupting ourselves with the military (who are a menace not just to ME), which is in large part so bloated because of ME? Oh, I know, Nader will fix all that, he’ll wave the magic wand. Like he’s “fixed” all these other things right here at home.

  52. john wilkinson said on July 17th, 2008 at 10:13am #

    “then what palestine, iraq, iran go thru at the hands israel’s colonies is mainly because these r terrorits lands and deserve everything they get…”

    In WW2, we in Yugoslavia were “terrorists” against the Germans. Ditto for the French and other resistance movements.

    B4 Israel became a country, there were hotel bombings and other similar acts (I assume NOT terrorist acts) by jewish (zionist?) “freedom fighters”, who later assumed the highest positions within the israeli govt, like prime ministers (begin as an example). They used the exact same methods against the british.

    not to mention massacres of palestinians and what’s ongoing there now, those are not “terrorist” acts.

    iraq got what it deserved? so, a million dead was a fair price to pay? and let’s do the same to iran, let’s make it at least 5 million dead there. after all they are muslims, and the worst kind at that.

    I see, the palestinians should just buy a bunch of F-22s (300 million dollars per copy, another outrage for another post), provided they could get that past aipac, and duke it out with israel? it’s OK that their land and property were stolen, and that they are dispossessed and imprisoned on their own land? (the fraction of their land that they are “allowed” to populate). no, i am not in favor of terrorism or innocent victims, but who is suffering more terrorism, who has more innocent victims; why don’t we recognize ALL the victims and ALL the terrorists? is it surprising that some of them are so desperate — so desperate to be even heard by the world, that they take to this?

    yep, turn the other cheek, that’s what they should do, that’s the “christian” way, as shown through history. god will provide. they’ll all go to heaven, incl. the malnourished, dirt poor, dehydrated little children.

  53. john wilkinson said on July 17th, 2008 at 11:53am #

    ?First of all, i never claimed that france et al., are israeli colonies. I don’t know the situation there. Here in the US, we have a sizable jewish population — maybe France doesn’t have one, or they are not that well organized, or maybe they have laws against this kind of influence, I don’t know; many Jews who are here have experienced or had relatives who experienced the holocaust. Yes, they are rightfully concerned about what they perceive as existential problems, but their concern
    and their influence have gone over what’s reasonable and is to detriment of many others, the US, the palestinians, (and also the Jews themselves over the long run) etc. They are becoming what they are afraid of. WW2 was not the first instance – there had been several jewish pogroms in europe over the ages. And they are, by and large, wealthy, or in good financial position, much more so than the average American – I mentioned the types of occupations (bankers, wall street
    types, etc., though yes there are also engineers, scientists, etc., but you won’t find too many garbage collectors). Yes, they wield a lot of money and a lot of power. They have a lockhold on us and our policies pertaining to that area. In THOSE areas, we are their colony, for all practical purposes. (See how OUR leaders act, and how THEIR leaders act, what the RESULTS are, not how supposedly “poor” and “helpless” you think Israel is).

    Israel is not a friendless country when there are so many jewish people in high places in various countries.

    As for Lebanon, etc., not having the bomb, i really don’t know what this discussion is about. OK, the US was once a “poor” country militarily, we had to be helped by France in order to get the independence from the British. So, are you claiming that, therefore, the US cannot possibly be in possession of a nuclear weapon? If a country is sufficiently organized, have a certain population (thus the talent pool — and world wide “soldiers” like Israel does) and is sufficiently dead set on such a course, and all kinds of other conditions are met (they don’t care if there are sanctions, if there’s a military intervention, etc., they’re prepared to keep this up for DECADES, and prepared to squash other priorities) then the country can have the nuclear weapon — there are sufficient resources in even a small and “poor” country, esp. if you take from people’s mouths to feed the military (N. Korea); provided they don’t get invaded beforehand.

    Look at North Korea – they were not helped by anyone, do a little research. Yes, Pakistani Khan tried to help them, but he was selling enrichment technologies, but they have the plutonium bomb, not the HEU (highly enriched uranium) one. (OK, that first test wasn’t a total success, but they’re well on the way). And on top of that, they have designed and built several generations of sophisticated missiles, very long range ones, to the point that we’re afraid they’ll be intercontinental soon (if they’re not already). Iran, too, has designed and built sophisticated missiles. Now, yes, Lebanon and Sudan have not done any of those things, there’s too much chaos in those countries. And even if there weren’t chaos, maybe their leadership would have other priorities, the wmd’s require long lead times (decades) and sacrifices; and require a certain technological base in the country. It takes a lot of effort to try to stave off the IAEA, etc. In any case, Israel didn’t have to develop these weapons, which is the hardest part. What happened with
    France (which also supplied the Dimona reactor), I don’t know and don’t have the time. Of course, the French were playing their own game, which at that point was at cross-purpose with the Americans. (At that time, they still had dreams of their empire, etc.) Or maybe the design was stolen and not given away voluntarily. Could they have done it on their own? I don’t know, and I don’t think it’s pertinent to what Israel does TODAY and its relationship and balance of power with the US TODAY. Yesterday, Britain and France were powers to be reckoned with, but not TODAY (at least not nearly to the same extent); things CHANGE.

    About Israel being someone’s foothold in Asia: do you really think that these industrialists, capitalists, (and especially POLITICIANS) etc., have such patience, such long time horizons, such planning abilities? Look at the long list of sorry evidence of them being concerned only about
    tomorrow and only about themselves and having half-assed plans even in the best of circumstances. And a million things can go wrong with such a plan over such a long time (and they — most of them, have enough brains to see that). And what about documentary evidence in any of these countries — something would have come to light by now. This reminds me how over there – in Europe, and probably elsewhere, the US is blamed for EVERYTHING. We’re the Borg, the mysterious (but malignant) creatures who always have perfect (but abominable) plans,
    whose plans always work out to a T, who have infiltrated and corrupted everything, and who have supernatural powers and knowledge. For example, many people, SERIOUSLY blame the US for creating that tsunami in the Indian ocean a couple years ago. Not to mention, every war, every coup, every bad thing (never a good thing), the US is ALWAYS to blame for that, even in the absence of any evidence. Not that there aren’t bad things we do, I’m just saying how these theories have gone to the extreme.