Job Discussion Forums

[ls650]

Can't you just post the link and be done with it? Sheesh!

[some waygug-in]

OK. Here's a related link: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

Cheers

[thelmadatter]

Im probably a masochist, but here goes nothing:

MR,

You said in this thread

[moonraven]

Moonraven knows the diference between information and propaganda. Some of you obviously do not.

[MixtecaMike]

[moonraven]

T and M: No flame-retarded underpants needed. You folks seem to be pathologically interested in MY posts, yet in your own all you do is quote me and make adolescent comments--you never write any considered opinions. Do you folks ever THINK?

For those folks who DO think and who have access to books in English, I highly recommend the new book by Jungian analyst James Hillman: A TERRIBLE LOVE OF WAR. It's an interesting study of bellicosity and the role of religion in same, with emphasis on the current moment in US history, in which the author is not reluctant to examine his own attraction to war.

[stillnosheep]

[moonraven]

still no sheep: nice to be able to count on at least ONE person in this forum bring capable of rational thought. Thanks for being you.

The problem with trying to open people's eyes and minds about the fog of fascism they have bought into is that those types always insist that the fascist is someone else--while goosestepping down the street. (Just as the Christian Terrorists declare war on Terrorism, Muslim style.)

Perhaps if ONE of them had a change of heart and mind and went on nationwide talk shows 24/7 for a year to declare his/her repentance he/she might have to be listened to--but that would never happen when 90 plus percent of the mass media is owned by the political right wing.

[scott wilhelm]

Like most of you, I was to say the least, not happy with Bush's election. But I wasn't surprised. Bush, with the help of Carl Rove, ran a brilliant campaign- negative, divisive, well-funded and misleading. The GOP convention was a 4 day Kerry-bashing get-together. Kerry on the other hand, ran a horrible campaign-a convention held a month too early, a near-ban on Bush-bashing at the convention and a lack of seriousness about the need to raise enough money to run the kind of slam ads the GOP ran , especially at the end of the campaign. Considering the tactical mistakes made by Kerry and the DNC, and the brilliance of the Bush campaign, my party did better than I expected.
As disgusted as I was with the Democrat's almost designed to lose campaign, I am more appalled at the party's tactics now that the election is over. Kerry's talk of a need to bridge the partisan divide, the need for consensus and cooperation of "healing the nation" is not only sickening, its tactical insanity. The Democrats smart move would be to say essentaially-"The GOP won. The Right has a mandate. We will oppose its agenda. We won't cooperate with those who wish to implement it. We will function as an opposition (but not obstructionist) party. We support the elimination of the Senate filibuster rule. The people have spoken with a conservative voice. The Republicans have the right to implement their agenda. The people have the right to get what they voted for."
My party is making a giant mistake to board a sinking ship by cooperating the the Right. America needs to be taught that voting has consequences. Let the GOP cut its own throat by enacting its program. The country will go through hell in the process. But that is what is needed to get the Democrats off of this silly centrist Republican-Lite course. 4 more years of Bush and company, if the Democratic Party plays the hand it has been dealt smartly, will mean good things for the party in 2006 and the election of an anti-free trade, pro-union president in 2008.
The U.S. is in for a miserable and scary 4 years, as is much of the world. But looking back at history, we had to have Hoover before we got FDR. Just hope we Democrats have the smarts to be a real opposition, not a partner in crime.

[moonraven]

I am not at all convinced that the US HAD to have Hoover before getting FDR. FDR came from a very well-placed political family and was a consumate politician. Scott, the kind of thinking that justifies the worst case scenario on the basis that it's as likely to provoke an opposite reaction is very dangerous.

You cannot expect Kerry to be any other way than what he patently was in his campaign--Tweedledee to Bush's Tweedledumb. They were both right wing candidates. What the US citizenry needs to do is to develop a viable left wing opposition. Right of center as a position is never in opposition to the extreme right wing.

[scott wilhelm]

Moonraven makes a good point in saying that the U.S. needs a viable Left. Agreed. I'm not calling for a center-right position to be taken by the Democrats. On the contrary, I want the democrats to go with a left-leaning presidential candidate in 2008. I wanted Gephardt this time. Unfortunately for me and other labor supporters/ free-trade haters, he bombed in the Iowa causus and dropped out. While I am a Democrat, I have to admit that my party is not what I want it to be. I wouldn't call it center-right, nor would I call Kerry that. Kerry was rated at about 80 % by the liberal Americns for Democratic Action. He was left on many social issues. But centrist on labor issues and to the right on free trade. The Left has a popular issue in the U.S. by being anti-NAFTA and ant-free trade. We nominated a candidate this time around who had a voting record out of synch with organized labor, environmentalists and the public, by being a supporter of NAFTA and GATT. Kerry took unpopular liberal positions by opposing the death penalty, supporting hiring quotas and opposing school prayer. I would love to see the Dems run solidly left on economic issues and at the same time not play into the GOP's hands so ineptly on the wedge social issues. Rather than calling for the party to be a center-right opposition to a far-right governing GOP, I would rather it be a moderate Left/ populist party that is pro natioanl health insurance, pro-environment, pro-labor and militantly anti-globablization, but not taking the GOP's bait on the issues that suck in rural working class people- gun-control, flag-burning, etc. The working class rural and southern white guys that got tricked into thinking Bush was one of them need to be part of a real Left that won't let itself be played like a fiddle on the social issues. (You wouldn't see Chavez pushing gun control or being tolerant of Venezuelan flag-burners).
Not obstructing the GOP in the Senate by way of the filibuster is a strategy that has real risks. I realize that. But I don't see the democrats getting away with a move Left until the Right hangs itself with its own rope. Moonraven is probably right, Kerry was bound to talk of cooperation and unity in the aftermath of the election. That is who he is, a compromiser who doesn't like confrontation and who believes his opponents mean well. For that reason, I think the Dems need to move quickly to replace him as party leader. He may be a nice guy and all, but he's not effective. As horrible as the Republican's agenda is, I'm afraid that by either cooperating with its implementation or obstructing its passage, (Kerry may do a bit of both) is a real tactical error. Bush and his rightist cohorts are dangerous folks, no doubt about it. And letting them enact thier program is risky. But I doubt that another 4 years of a guy with strong authoritarian sympathies is going to result in the establishment of a police state that can't be voted out in 2008. 2 centuries of constitutional government won't be destroyed in 2 terms of an extremist president. People will see through this guy. But not until we let them see him for what he is. And that won't happen if we either get in bed with him or undemocratically (by way of an anti-democratic Senate procedural rule) obstruct him. The Left's best move for taking control of the party and the White House in 2008, is by letting Bush give voters a big taste of the poison they voted for.
More often than not, when a country moves Left, it is preceeded by a horrible experience with the Right. Not always, but I'll play the odds on it. Sweeden got 40 years of the Social Democrats only after the conservatives half destroyed the economy there. Allende came to power in Chile in large part because the Christian Democrats had a thing for free-market economics and pushed the unemployment rate to 12 %. Venezuela had to suffer through years of free-market misery under the governments of both major parties before it would take a chance on Chavez. France wasn't willing to vote for Mitterand and the Left alliance until they had a full dose of horrid free-market nonsense in the 70s and early 80s. I doubt the U.S. is exceptional in this way. We won't see the Right for what it is until we suffer under its program. Then, and only then will we know we've been had and make a corrective Left turn.

[moonraven]

Good post, Scott. As a democrat, you shouldn't have to hold your nose like so many folks did when they voted for Kerry.

I have to tell you that Ch�vez IS for gun control. He believes only the army should have weapons. And he has--at least in the past--tolerated the US financed opposition's abuses of the flag (not burning it, though.)

[Guy Courchesne]

With a country so polarized as the US, Kerry really didn't have much of a choice but to play the center. Bush went right...deep right, so Kerry nabbed the middle ground. Rove is one helluva chess player.

Watch Bush move to the middle now, even though the GOP conrols just about everything. I think we'll all be surprised by a very moderate Bush this time round.

2008 is a big question. Frist comes up as a contender for Prez, but he's not national yet. Watch Hillary come up this time. Up against McCain maybe?

I'm putting my long range bets on a GOP 2008 presidency. Still, a lot can happend in 4 years. There's still North Korea and Iran to deal with. Any bets on Colin Powell's departure date? I got Nov. 13th in the pool.

[MixtecaMike]

[moonraven]

"Deal with"? What a crock. How about keeping the US nose and military out of other countries' affairs for a change?