Why would the MIC give to the Democratic candidates unless they want to influence them?
What I’m saying is that there is no difference between which “corporatist” you see in the major parties that are still in this race, save the only one that hasn’t bet the farm, and that is Mike Gravel. The rest are supported (or should I say employed?) by the same corporations.
So the next time Obama says he doesn’t take “special interest” money, you know that he is a liar. The next time they rant and rave about “change”, you know what change you’ll get: what’s left after their payback to their benefactors.
So, like I said before, vote for the corporate-backed candidate of your choice, we could have stood up to the Mainstream Media when they selected who would get promoted, but we didn’t. We can either keep playing their game, or wake up and smell the coffee. Just one more thing, I don’t make this stuff up.
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
I do see the Obamaniacs in the light of those who are so desperate for change, any change, that they suspend their intellect and continue to drive on emotion. A very sad way to choose a candidate, in my opinion.
All the facts, and you did great work in showing these supporters that their candidate is all talk and no walk, will not sway these people. So sad for our nation.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM
are those who deem it more important to trash the democratic candidates than to get rid of the republicans and by doing so only enabling the likelihood to another republican victory in November.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 3:24:42 PM
could one come to that non-sequitir of a conclusion Mr. Shaw after having read, if you did, and analysed, which you obviously didn't or won't, this piece which gives you the plain truth in easy-to-read numbers.
It's easy to see how cultic are the adherents of the Democratic Party in such a comment and how ironic it is that they are the ones who so piously claim moral superiority over the Republican faithful.
There is one party in this country with two right wings. It is the modern imperious liberal who is in fact the main obstacle to any susbstantive change in the American political landscape.
Thanks for the piece Mr. Gatto. It seems too much truth does not go down well with the Obama kool-aid.
by
coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 6:51:27 PM
but you waste your time with this one. No amount of reason or common sense will sway this mesmerized loyalist from continuing the political philosophies that are ruining our nation...so sad but he is one and we are legion.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 6:53:07 AM
You must be joking! Obviously sir you haven't read any of my articles. What are you doing to solve these many problems beyond emersing yourself in the idea you are smarter than everyone else? Yes you moan and complain than attack those who see other possibilities than your own. But when push comes to shove, you're really like everybody else, just another opinion on two legs.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 12:22:06 PM
Many here give and take, you are not one of them. You accuse me of exactly that which is most wrong with your own character...But thanks for trying.
You comment upon my political work without the faintest damned idea of what I do in my community. You contribute only blind and misplaced loyalty to your party and again and again dismiss the opinions of those who do not do so. Physician heal thyself.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 3:09:01 PM
are so enscathed by your radical ideology(and hate) that you would rather spend your time attacking me then moving along to a rational discussion. I've already presented my reasons to drawing the conclusions I have, while you on the otherhand haven't even promoted a basic idea has to how we can solve these problems. Apparently attacking a candidate is in itself enough. That and basically calling whomever does not an idiot. But this won't stop campaign finance as it is, it won't stop the war, it won't turn around the economy or save the environment and most importantly, it won't get rid of the greatest obstacle to all of those things, the neocons and their 2% support base.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:24:53 PM
I have enough posts in this forum for anyone not an agendised clown to know full well the politics I espouse. I am a Green Party advocate, an advocate of third party politics in general because neither of the two major parties in this country work to benefit the general public.
You have a history of rabid defense of the Democratic Party, an inability to come to grips with the fact that more and more of us on the left no longer buy into the corporatist line they espouse, the complicities they offer Bush and the GOP,and the incompetence they have displayed since attaining the majority in the legislature.
Rather than debate point by point you jump on your dictionary, proving only that you can spell not that you are at all politically astute. You can ignore what I post, you can defend your own position but you cannot expect knee jerk compliccity with your own unique political loyalties. You are simply a .....edited for compliance with Rob's new policies...too bad to.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:54:21 PM
Your desperation is showing, and perhaps something a bit sadder as well. Where in hell do you get off saying I have never expressed an agenda. You are so freaking clueless as to be unworthy of further dialogue. All you do is defend your turf, and you do it with a complete lack of finesse and grace. Then you accuse others of your own failings, what a maroon!
Sad little fellow really. If only this forum had an "ignore" function, I would be rid of your sophomoric crap...alas.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 7:01:19 AM
I have read the piece and stand by my statements but at the same time I wish I had added the real reasons as to why I believe Obama is so popular. And no I didn't drink the Obama coolaid either and see myself as settling on him rather than endorsing him. The reason why Obama is so popular is not because he is so enigmatic or even the best candidate. It's because after thirty years of conservative mismanagement, when the hopes and dreams of the lower 98% have been shattered. whether substantative or not, the word" change" is a dynamic in all of this. Change is a softword for revolution and many people are in that frame of mind. When successful, promising societies like our own, that had been based on the New Deal, literally creating a middle class comes to a screeching halt, people come to the realization there is no hope and when that happens violent revolution generally takes its place. I believe hope is the last bastion of sanity in this nation and Obama represents that at the moment. Should he win and fail to address the plights of the average citizen, then hold on to your lug nuts!
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM
Take a look at the following information obtained from the OpenSecrets.org website. The data below compare, by industry, campaign funds received by Clinton, Obama and McCain during their Senate campaign runs starting in 2003 through January, 2008.
Ask yourself these questions after reviewing the statistics: 1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)? 2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy? 3. Do you believe either Clinton or Obama is free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?
Here are the four industries that contributed the most campaign cash broken down by candidate. The information was obtained from OpenSecrets.Org.
How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when both Clinton and Obama have received more industry campaign cash than their Republican opponent? How can the Democratic Party be the “party of the people” when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.
Hillary Clinton receives more MIC money then any of the candidates and Obama the least. It seems the MIC are abandoning the republicans for Hillary. This only means that the military industrialists think she'll win over McCain and that they consider her more approachable than they do Barrack Obama.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 2:20:28 PM
We have Clinton McCain and Obama to choose from because...
They are the ones that have the most money. Elections are driven by money. If you want real reform, disconnecting money from elections would be the first step. Entering public office should be like joining the priesthood. Upon entering all personal wealth is seized and sealed with 100% financial transparency for the duration of tenure. But law and crime, virtue and corruption, good and evil are all subjective. Employees of large corperations are thankfull for their influence over government. As much as I would like to see the end of all nation aggression, it is difficult to ignore the fact that alot of families in the heartland of this country are fed by the profits of the MID. For every DU shell that falls in the middle east that causes a birth defect, there is a family in TN that has health care (including prenatal) that is provided by it's manufacturer. Long story short, there are too many of us.
by
erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM
If you don't mind I'd like to quote this in my podcast. What I can't figure out is how to fix this endless corruption-money cycle. It gets worse every time there's an election and each new president owes more to more corporate influences. Obama claims to be for "instant runoff voting" but how could that be true when he's the benefactor of the lack of it, as are most politicians in office.
by
Shelly Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:57:44 AM
I was going to give you the answer in terms of what America should do. Then I realized that every country in the world should do these things - 1. Build and mantain a strong manufacturing base 2. Make education the largest slice of the tax revenue pie insted of military 3. Create a 'manhatan project' of engineers and scientist, but not to create an atomic bomb, but to creat alternative energy sources. Every successfull money making scheme in history started with an idea. Ideas (good ones) come from creativity, creative people. Countries should do all they can to cultivate the creativity of their citizens. So I guess the answer I have is -get smarter.
by
erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 8:21:51 AM
Do you really believe a manufacturing base a necesity? Times change, buggy whip manufacturers turn into automobile factories and in turn are replaced by software firms. Technology is the key to the new US economy. That we are no longer a builder of much is not a problem, let the third world emerge from their abysmal poverty through factory jobs. We can make billions in ideas alone.
I would suggest that a government effort to retrain those who have lost their factory jobs is a great idea. But to bemoan a lost mill or plant to a nation where the average wage is 25 cents an hour is to waste ones time....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 6:00:46 PM
Yeah, I still think a manufacturing base is important
The reason is education. Although you are correct, we should be able to move past being a manufactuing country and export our expertise but we can't. We can not because our pubic education system does not teach the skills necessary for a service (technology) driven economy. In fact, most pubic schools are teaching the same skill set today they were teaching in the 50's. To compete with the international market on service (technology) schools should be teaching 4+ years of computer science... mandatory. Chemestry classes, biology (that isn't held back by god crap) are also necessary. The whole focus of our education system should be changed. Today there are minumum math requirement tests (no child left behind) but they should include things like regular expression and variable length subnetmasking. But you see without these things our youth is not prepared to be comepeditive in a service economy. "but that's what college is for" Bullshit! Fewer and fewer people can afford college. And a broken education system takes a generation to fix (way longer than an election cycle) so while those changes are being made you still need to employ folks. 20 years ago if you were putting yourself through college you could work a construction job, or factory job, landscaping, janitorial, food service, a government job, or retail. Today all there is left is food service and retail.
We need a manufacturing base because although we should be a service economy not all of us are not prepared to be.
by
erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 2:22:51 PM
While I did note that retraining for the lost jobs should be a government responsibility, paid for possibly by the reinstitution of tariffs upon goods manufactured by those who have offshored their facilities, I do not feel as do you about the lack of educational opportunity here.
I am a case in point. After having been out of university for decades a career change necesitated further education. I obtained a degree in electronics and went on to a successful career in that field. While the NCLB legislation is a blatant attempt to turn our public education system into one that trains only for the fast food industry it has not succeeded all that well, not yet.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 8:46:39 AM
You are right Erik. That is the major problem. An even bigger problem is in getting politicians who spend more time on how they'll stay in office than they do in addressing our problems, to pass legislation that drastically cuts their own election coffers.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 1:41:59 PM
Accepting money from corporate interests in an election....
..... is not in any way being a corporatist yourself. To compare either Clinton, Gravel or Obama to corporatism is the lie here. Corporatism, or Mussolini's term for fascism is what Bush and the republicans gave us when they imposed tyrannical executive privileges for the president, rolled back habeas corpus, preemptively invaded another country in total disregard of the Geneva Conventions and trashed the Bill of Rights. Then and along with the privatization of government and the torturing of political prisoners, they created a "free" market system which amounts to nothing short of unfettered capitalism. I find it fascinating that a former chairmember of the "Liberal" Party would refer to Obama as a corporatist. Perhaps that's where "former" walks in. Obama is the most liberal member of the US senate and has the voting record to prove it!
Also Obama was referring to federal lobbyist groups. "Special interests" is a right wing buzz phrase for labor unions, who by the way are massively supporting Barrack Obama.
All candidates accept campaign finance based upon the rules, rules I agree must be changed. McCain and Feingold at one point had the right idea until as always, McCain caved into Bush making it even easier for corporate interests to contribute while it actually hurt liberal organization like the ACLU from receiving or donating funds. This is not Obama's fault, nor is it Hillary's. It's McCains fault for caving into Bush just as he did over torture, which essentially gave Bush the privilege to remove habeas corpus.
Also you didn't bother to mention that as early as April of last year, Obama had returned more than 50,000.00 in PAC money, so your calling him a liar is baseless.
Also I'd like to point out, the reasons I'm voting against McCain/Bush is not because of who donates to political campaigns. It's about stopping this war and with it the socio-economic trainwreck the neocons have created and then hopefully restoring a fairer system in democracy. Campaign finance reform can be achieved but not by the republicans or by those who attack democrats calling them corporatists, or in other words, Nazies. This form in blatant attack is totally unwarranted and completely unfounded.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 348 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 2:06:57 PM
