remember, this guy voted FOR the patriot acts - so he's no friend of democracy.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:35:32 PM

  (0+)

With all the talk about winning, I have heard no concession speech...  I will not buy an Obama win until the Clintons say that he won....

Anyway, I agree with Randy though..  Even if he does win, it will be more of the same...

Like the band "The Who" said...  "Meet the new boss....  He's the same as the old boss!!"

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:27:26 PM

  (0+)

An excellent article, Rob. However, I must agree with both Rady and Steve. There'll be no change with Barack Obama.

Just listen to the bellicosity he blathered today to the AIPAC committee. "Danger from Iran is grave, it is real?"  After which he received a standing ovation.  That doesn't sound at all like diplomacy. Unless it was all a charade?

Iran is about as much of a threat as Iraq was. They were'nt and now "We the People" are paying the price of Nation Building. 

If they attack Iran (and I believe they are crazy enough to do this) America will never, ever recover.

But I digress. 

 

Obama vows to stop Iran from having nuclear arms

Wed Jun 4, 11:17 AM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday Iran posed a serious threat in the Middle East and vowed to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.

Obama also vowed to vigorously support Israel's right to defend itself and pledged an active effort to pursue a Middle East peace agreement in a broad speech on the region he delivered a day after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world," Obama said.

Some of Obama's critics have sought to undercut his support with Jewish voters by suggesting that he would be more inclined than the Bush administration and Republican presidential candidate John McCain to put pressure on Israel to make concessions in any peace negotiations.

Obama has been seeking to dispel that notion in campaign events that include the AIPAC speech and a forum with Jewish voters in Florida last month.

McCain has criticized Obama's call for talks with Iran, a state Israeli leaders consider a threat to Israel's security.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan, editing by David Alexander)

 

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM

  (0+)

One of my downfalls as a writer is to be outspoken and tell it like it is, which sometimes brings my commentary into areas that are somewhat taboo, but fact is fact, and I don’t like sugar-coating what I believe is the truth.

When Obama was interviewed by Attytood’s Will Bunch, this exchange followed:

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race — and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to “immediately review the information that’s already there” and determine if an inquiry is warranted — but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as “a partisan witch hunt.” However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because “nobody is above the law.” LINK

When we consider the amount of corruption that has occurred during the Bush administration, to say it is monumental would be an understatement! The sheer number of people and corporations that have been cheating the government and ripping-off the American taxpayers is enormous, and if investigations were started that actually delved into the wrongdoing by the thousands of people who have been greedily lapping-up money through every type of corruption imaginable would take years of legal action to adjudicate - and after it was all said and done, could result in the conviction of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people that have been given free reign to rip-off America’s wealth by the Bush administration. In short, some of America’s most influential lawmakers and corporations could be found guilty of theft and corruption - and as we all know, America’s elite will not allow that to happen!

If Obama actually plans on following through with those intentions, then I believe it’s safe to say that his personal security needs to be unparalleled; what he describes needs to be carried-out to send a message to those who wish to use their power to steal from taxpayers, and it’s a noble endeavor, but in my opinion, one that is dangerous and could present a real danger to Senator Obama’s health and welfare. To ignore the danger that such a statement by Obama presents is denying the obvious - and while the public would welcome and support such an investigation, the forces that have been ripping us off will do anything and everything to stop such an investigation, and we need to face the reality of the danger that it poses to Obama - and act accordingly to safeguard him and his family.

Further, the statements he made would seem to indicate that a Pardon is not likely for Bush and Cheney if Obama wins the Presidency, which Clinton probably would have done within her first few weeks in office. Our nation could be on the verge of bringing accountability to Washington, something we all yearn for and are desperate to witness. True accountability would help to improve our economy and throw-out those who seek office only to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense, but in reality, such an endeavor may be a pipe-dream, albeit one many of us share and hope for each and every day of our lives!

Right now, if Obama wins the Presidency, the stage is set for one of the most remarkable political shake-ups in the last hundred years. I’m all for it, and I only hope that if Obama really is going to investigate the crimes of Bush and Cheney, that he lives through it and doesn’t succumb to the forces of evil that run almost every aspect of our government.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:48:59 AM

  (0+)

Obama has said he needs to "fix" NAFTA, not get rid of it.

Second, Obama has collected more money from the Wall Street set than anyone on the campaign so far.

Third, Obama and Clinton both support the Columbian Free trade Agreement, as long as they stop killing union workers down there.

Fourth, Obama's healthcare plan is also manditory for most Americans and also pays into the private insurance industry.

I suppose the list could go on. i gotta go to work to save money to pay for the insurance I am going to be forced to buy.

by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:24:11 AM

  (0+)

The US is a hugely diverse collection of people with liberal and conservative views.  No leader can embrace one end of the spectrum and hope to lead a unified nation.  Obama is not as liberal as some would like, not as conservative as others might like, he is a pragmatist.   His stated policy goals for the Democrats mirrors Clinton's.  It is a more liberal agenda than Republicans want, but it reflects the direction that most Democrats and many Independents embrace.

The questions Rob posed to these various individuals struck me as based on a liberal/progressive agenda of us against conservatives.  In reality, the real goal is to move the US forward against a conservative resistance to change.  A movement we believe is in the best interests of this country in much the same way as Conservatives feel their direction is in the best interest of the country.  If we get it right, the country moves with us.  If we screw up, the country rebels, conservative Republicans take over and the pendulum swings back in their direction. 

The Regan Democrats were largely the rebellious Southern white Christians angry with the Civil Rights efforts of the 1960's Democrats.  Republicans used these recent converts to push their own agenda for a more business friendly approach by government and outsourcing of government functions to business.  White Southerners voted their emotions instead of with common sense.  This has culminated in the GW Bush Presidency which has by all accounts been a disaster.

I would not look on the Obama Presidency and DLC control as a sudden shifting of it to the far left of center. You can't or you lose too much of your support base.   Rather, Obama's win creates some new opportunities, some new potential for change.  Perhaps a more favorable approach to the overall political process where average people have more input and more relevance in it.  If Obama has done anything it is to show the country for the first time that people can define their own destiny.  They can rally behind q good/great candidate so they do not require a political establishment and monied interests to ensecure success. He/she can appeal directly to the US public and through their help and support, win.  Future success requires not giving in to the temptation to do what one wants, but to carry out policies that benefit the broader interests of the general population (liberal and conservative).  One must keep an open mind, listen to all sides and not just assume one knows what is best.  The problem of both Liberals and Conservatives in the past -- is thinking they know what is best instead of listening to all sides and moving forward in a constructive/deliberate manner.  Obama provides the leadership that I believe will steer the head of state with due diligence and caution, not sharply in a new direction, but carefully changing course so as not to lose too much support during his time in office.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:58:38 AM

  (0+)

You are one fourth right concerning the rebellious South's reasons and turning them into Republicans:

integration of Blacks into the school system by "forced busing" is one;

however, just as big was the drugs era which seemed to be supported only by Democrats (LSD, heroin, cocaine, marijuana and the push to legalize all of them) in which they saw all liberals as Hippies not much unlike the Manson Gang;

the third was pornography in the new age of XXX rated theaters and massage parlors which they saw as being supported by groups such as the hard rock bands all the way to the long-haired Beetles;

the fourth issue probably became the main driving force was abortion as in Roe vs Wade. Most devout Christians see abortion as no less than murder; since the women's liberation movement with "ban the bra" up in your face demanding "right of choice" vs  "right to life" became the lynch pin of driving the South into the ninety percent Republican bracket. They saw abortion on demand as an evil method of birth control which supported the evilness of sex outside of marriage.

There were some sub-issues such as removing prayer in school decisions, movements to take "one nation under God" from the pledge and the absolute refusal to consider "creation" in any form.

These just made the chasm between Liberals and Conservatives, the devoutly religious and the devoutly irrereligous almost impossible to bridge. The senseless war in Iraq, the arrogant incompetence of Bush and Cheney, the 800 million dollar national debt, the cost of four dollar a gallon gasoline probably has bridged the gap; that is if radicalism does not fill it right back up.

Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:29:18 PM

  (0+)

Obama will bring no more than an attractive new packaging to the policies of empire. To wit, his speech to AIPAC yesterday showed no real difference from the position of the Bush admin's. He will allow the insurance companies to play a dominant role in any health care reform. He is not seriously opposed to NAFTA. He will not bring any of the Bush admin criminals "to justice." He will continue the pressure on Iran. There will be no letup in the ongoing militarization of the US.

All of this will take place while hosannas are being paid to how wonderful it is that the USA finally elected a black president.

Here's what the Obama candidacy is really about:

Long before Obama became a household name, filling stadiums and attracting small contributions by the millions over the Internet, his candidacy had attracted the support of a significant section of the Democratic foreign policy establishment, including figures like former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake.

They were drawn to Obama not so much by his critique of the Bush administration—which was not particularly vigorous, even by the toothless standards of the congressional Democrats—as by the symbolic effect that the election of the first African-American president would have in terms of reviving illusions, both internationally and within the United States, in the democratic pretensions of American capitalism.

With Obama’s nomination effectively secured, the American media has now gone into overdrive to peddle such illusions.....

The Obama nomination is not the product of a popular insurgency against the Democratic Party establishment or of a mass movement from below, as some of Obama’s more self-deluded supporters on the liberal left now proclaim. The role of the masses in the Obama campaign is best demonstrated by the rallies like that held Tuesday night in St. Paul, Minnesota—the people serve as extras in a well-developed, highly skillful marketing campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to refurbish American capitalist politics without touching its rotten foundations.....

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:27:28 PM

  (0+)

I have a pretty good idea of what to expect from a McCain administration and I really don't at all like what I expect. I expected better from a Clinton administration, but I could pretty well predict that it would be business friendly and middle of the road, leaning to the right.

I knew what to expect from a Kucinich administration and I liked it, but it was pretty clear that anyone who was so open about having such a progressive agenda would not be allowed co compete fairly. He didn't stand a chance and neither did Edwards.

I don't know what to expect from an Obama Presidency and unfortunately we can't seem to expect much more than that from a successful presidential candidate. He seems cautious enough about what he says that he has generally left his options open while still being allowed by the media to win the nomination. He seems smart and he seems to seek out advice and take good advice into consideration. It is almost impossible to imagine that he would be as bad a president as Bush has been but he could possibly be as good a president as any we have ever had.

The established forces in Washington could grind him down and spit him out, but so far he seems to handle himself well, so there is hope that this will not happen. He could be just what this country needs, but we will just have to wait and see... and hope.  It seems clear to me that he is our best hope and as of now, we should count ourselves lucky to have him.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:27:51 PM

  (0+)

I'm sitting in a Flying J Truck Stop in Wisconsin, having just driven from St. Paul where I attended the Obama event. I started on the campaign trail over 5 months ago, in the ice of Iowa. Now summer is here and I'm sweating in the back of my van.

I'm ecstatic the primary is over. And I'm pleased Obama won.

But what are our minimal benchmarks for us not to be disappointed with an Obama Administration? No president can deliver everything, yet there are changes from every administration. But will there be enough change in an Obama Administration and in the direction that progressive and liberals want?

I think we should focus on, say, 4 or 5 specific goals that we "demand" from an Obama Administration within a time frame. For those who say nothing will change and for those who say there will be a huge change, I don't believe either. But what I want to know what should change or we will then say Obama has failed as president. 

by Stewart Nusbaumer (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:50:06 PM

  (0+)

The biggest change that I want is a president who will resort to reason and insist on evidence and a consideration of consequences when making major decisions.  If Obama can make this one change that will be enough for me.

Some big bonuses would be:

End the war in Iraq and wrap up the one in Afganistan.  Help rebuild these countries, but more important, get out of the way so the people there can sort things out. 

Reverse the Bush tax cuts.  Don't just end them but institute reparations in the form of excess profits taxes.

Institute a single-payer health plan.

Pass a new independent prosecutor law and appoint  prosecutors to oversee investigations of 9-11, of prosecutor-gate, of the Pflame affair and of Bush Administrations violations of the constitution.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:51:20 PM

  (0+)

Mainers really DO have more common sense!

Must be the long winters! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:26:08 AM

  (0+)

Obama will never be President. He learned politics Chicago style from Antoin Rezko, and has already shown he can and will go dirty. People have been blaming Clinton for all the negative attacks she launched on Obama, but it's simply a planned Obama talking point as a leaked memo from HIS campaign proved. His campaign sought Hillary hating Republicans and Independents in his Democrat for a Day program. His volunteers committed fraud in the Texas caucus which is still being investigated, 200 cases with 2000 complainants. His supporters have even gone so far as to physicaly attack elderly female Clinton supporters in Ohio. The RBC flagrantly violated at least 3 of their own rules to give Obama the delegates they GAVE him in the Michigan decision.

Then you add in his ties to Antoin Rezko, now CONVICTED on 16 counts in his trial. He has ties to Obama going back to when he went to meet Obama at Harvard and offer him a job. A job Obama says he didn't take, but upon leaving Harvard Law School, where did Barack go? Did he go to a strong law firm representing minority issues? No he went to work for a small law firm who's major client was Antoin Rezko! Rezko launched his political career, and Obama pushed for the restructuring of the hospital boards that allowed Rezk's corrupt board members (The same corrupt board members Obama helped get on the boards) to help Rezko commit the fraud he was convicted of. Why did no one pay attention when Chicago reporters have been saying since 2004 that Obama is not what he portrays himself to be. He is the typical dirty Chicago politician. One Chicago reporter even released a book on Senator Obama yesterday, which contains an in depth look at the real Obama, which the author claims is a true eye opener that will make everyone not vote for Obama.

by POdVet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:23:38 PM

  (0+)

So you'll vote for McSAME instead?

...or maybe Ralphie ?

I have a friend who thinks Ralph is still the guy, and why would anyone vote for the "same thing"  over and over every 4 years; that's the sign of insanity, she says.  (maintaining that Obama would be no different from McCain; ie, not Progressive enough. )

I submitted carefully that voting for a guy who pops up every 4 years to LOSE is pretty insane, too! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:31:37 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:44:53 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

I do not know about the coming change in the Democrat Party. Senator Obama is a untried, unproven commodity. There is a difference between Progressive Liberalism and ranting, raving, rabid radicalism. Time will tell whether he is the former or the latter or if he will cave to the corporations that run this country.

Just remember only Senator Clinton pressed for a universal, single pay national insurance program which is the only way you can get "medicine for profit" out of the death grip of the AMA (American Medical Association) who are over ninety percent far right wing Republicans, the drug cartel and the insurance industry. Senator Obama's program was much less Liberal than hers.

There are issues facing this country that could very well change the course of history or the USA and most of it worse. The insane dependency on the Near East oil, this senseless hatred of Argentina, the blind bellying up to a small minority in Florida who controls our Cuba policy. These people supported Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II, and will support McCain. The Democrat Party owes them nothing.

People are pipe dreaming on this site if they think Obama or McCain will extract us from Iraq in less than two years. Afghanistan will probably be more like four just to keep the Pakistan tribes in control.  Obama knows this, Clinton said it while McCain wants a presence there for the next hundred years to get every drop of oil we can from them.

If attitudes toward Israel do not change, limited nuclear war is looming over the horizon in which not only will Israel be limited, but the Muslim cartel will be limited as well for they had just as soon bomb Mecca or Medina as nuke Jerusalem. To the Christian, Jesus is to return to Jerusalem as Islam, also teachers; to the Jew (religious) Messiah will come to Jerusalem making the city too sacred to destroy by any one of the three great religious powers. These people are just that stupid to use the bomb, but not on Jerusalem.

One thing I hope I see as a change in OEN is this radical hatred for anything Israel which ends up as a deep hatred for anything Jewish. AIPAC has as much right to lobby as any Muslim country such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran or anyone else. If AIPAC is doing things illegal then bring them into the court of law, but lets quit the blind hate Israel propaganda. Just notice "Munich" and "Richard Mynick.: My goodness they and those like them can find any excuse to take a swipe at Israel even if we were talking about selling bikinis to Eskimos in Alaska

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:45:15 PM

  (0+)

NO FOREIGN country should have a LOBBY in our CONGRESS!

Period!

Nor should they be receiving obscene amounts of "Aid" every year, ad infinitum, without the consent of the People of THIS country, or without any conditions upon its USE.

That's Taxation without Representation!

And THAT is history, not another one of your ZionistMyths!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:46:50 AM

  (0+)

The great majority of the countries do have lobyist as we have them in most countries, and there is no law against them presenting their interest to Congress. If they are doing something illegal then present charges against them to the US Attorney's office. You want people to think Israel is the only International lobbyist. Sorry, that is not honest if you know that fact and I have a feeling you do.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:20:33 PM

  (0+)

Let us cut all the aid to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the West Bank and Gaza, Pakistan, Kuwait and other Muslim countries who are Israel's avowed enemies. Get real. The United Arab Republic only had an Air Force thanks to the old USSR and the USA.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM

  (0+)

Ever get the feeling that your government is screwing you? Legally, of course, that's something that it is not allowed to do unless you give your consent. Without your consent it isn't a consensual relationship and becomes rape. So my question is, did you give your consent or not?

"Of course not," my friends tell me indignantly. "Why would we consent to having our own jobs outsourced, our homes repossessed, our children's futures mortgaged to pay for wars based on lies, and allowing big corporations to poison our food?"

"I don't know why you'd consent to things like that," I tell them, "but I'm not so much concerned about your reasoning – I just want to know if you did or did not give your consent."

"No!" they answer angrily. "We did not consent!"

And I hear their echoes everywhere I go.

"We did not consent!" shout the peace activists.

"We did not consent!" scream the 9/11 Truthers.

"We did not consent!" holler the downsized and repossessed, young and old.

I hear them, but I'm not sure I'm buying it. If they didn't consent, how could things like this have happened? What if they actually had consented but are now ashamed of it and are trying to frame a perfectly innocent government for rape?

Now I'm not talking about implied consent, I'm talking about affirmative consent. Not just the failure to resist or to say no, but the act of saying, "Yes! I want it! Screw me! Take me for everything I've got! I'm yours!"

You see, our government may be aggressive abroad, but here at home it is not a rapist. It always asks you clearly and politely if you want to be screwed. And the process in which it asks is called the electoral system. Every four years our government asks us if we want to be screwed, and every four years we say yes. It even holds off-year elections every two years, and in most places citizens are asked to give their consent, at least to being screwed by state and local government, every year or several times a year.

"But we didn't say yes," people tell me. "We voted no!"

Ah, but we have secret vote counting in this country, so how can you prove that you said no? When votes are counted in secret is it the same as when intercourse takes place behind closed doors. It's your word against theirs and they say that you said yes.

"No," they tell me," it so happens that the whole thing was caught on videotape and we can prove that we said no." And sure enough, there are CD ROMS with the poll tapes, the register books, and the actual ballots, proving that the citizens did not consent. But alas, the statute of limitations has run out and it is much too late to file charges now. "Why didn't you bring this evidence forward at the time?" I ask.

"Because it was withheld from us," they whine. "The government wouldn't let us have the proof until we'd spent years in court forcing them to release the records."

"You're telling me," I say, "that you had a few drinks with them, went up to their room, they asked you politely if you wanted to get screwed, and you said no, clearly and distinctly, but that they raped you anyway, and that when you tried to get the tapes to prove it, they wouldn't give them to you until it was too late for you to file charges?"

"Uh," they respond, "we thought that as long as there was a verifiable record of what happened, it would be perfectly safe."

If I hadn't seen the evidence with my own eyes, I don't think I'd believe that there had been any rape. People that dumb are so easily seduced that it isn't usually necessary to rape them. But I have seen the evidence and they were indeed raped.

In 2000 the people clearly said no, but the Supreme Court didn't consider the evidence (the vote count, the illegal voter purges, the voter suppression, and the rigged ballots and voting machines) to be admissible, so an unelected President was installed against the express will of the people. That's rape. But by the time the government released the evidence, it was too late to do anything about it.

In 2004 the people again clearly said no, but this time the government had become so adept at withholding the evidence that Supreme Court intervention wasn't necessary. Once again the evidence was withheld and the unelected President was installed for a second term. And once again by the time the people were able to prove they'd been raped, the statute of limitations had run out and the damage could not be repaired..

So now we are approaching the 2008 election. The same crooked elections officials are in control. The same secret vote counting machines will be used. Once more the government will ask you politely if you want to get screwed, and once more you will shmooze with them, have a few drinks together, and then go into their voting booth and say no. And once again you are going to get raped and be unable to prove it until it is much too late to do anything about it.

And yet people still berate me when I suggest that they not go to the polls this time.

"If we don't vote, we can't complain," they say.

What good does complaining do?

"If we don't vote, the bad guys will win," they tell me.

Did the good guys win when they did vote?

"It's our civic duty and responsibility to vote," they claim.

In rigged elections with secret vote counts? Give me a break!

"This time it might be different," they say.

Well, the first time somebody tells me that they've been raped, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I will ask how it happened and if it seems to me that they were engaging in risky behavior, I'll suggest that they be more careful in the future.

The second time that somebody tells me they've been raped, and they explain that it happened in the exact same way because they ignored my advice, I begin to feel that they are at least partially to blame themselves.
 

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:05:11 AM

  (0+)