********************************************************************** It's already obvious that Carville/Clinton/Lieberman centrists are giving away the Constitutional farm.
Gee, who's talking about impeachment these days, or getting out of Iraq QUICKLY? Certainly not the Democratic heads of the House or Senate. Hey, Nancy P., remember Iraq? And remember all that jive progressive talk you did before we (i.e., the progressives) handed you the house?
So, what's the deal? Two steps forward and three steps backward?
And how many more lectures do we have to hear about how political "realism" equals bipartisanship centrism? Hey, that's just samo, samo talk from American elites, i.e., those dem multimillionaires and billionaires who belong to exactly the same country clubs as pug multimillionaires and billionaires.
So, here's the deal. The Little Red Hen of progressives and "populists" won the 2006 midterms, but the dem lackeys of the American pig rich are trying to steal all the bread we baked.
So, did 2006 really happen or not? Did we or did we not play the game by the rules and did we or did we know kick out quantities of Bush/Republican fascists? Of course the answer is yes to both, but we underestimated the God-like power of America's mega rich.
And while we're at it, who's still talking about the Israeli/Palestinian metastasized cancer these days? President Jimmy Carter wrote a book about it. Perhaps our quintessential elder statesman didn't walk that razor's edge entirely successfully, but AT LEAST he reminded us that both Palestinians and Israeli's are still living in horror. All the statistics are now showing that, if anything, that mutual cancer is WORSE, not better.
The point is, the Middle East is a collective toilet of religious fanaticism and human misery, but centrists will enable those conflicts (i.e., wars) to continue indefinitely, because a centrist by definition is a "non boat rocker". But since our ship of state continues to rapidly sink, it's now or never time for MAJOR boat rocking.
OK, the big picture is now very clearly in focus. The pig, pig rich (of BOTH parties) are all of a piece with centrists (of BOTH parties). Said differently, centrism is fascism light, since the name of their game is to protect the reality/world of America's astronomically rich (say, the top 2 percent). In other words they are the political court jesters of American Royalty.
Yes, 2006 moved Democracy and the planet away from the certain death Bush/Republican waterfall, but 98% of the country is still being bled dry by vampire elites (e.g., the Bush Royal Family -- alias the Saudi Royal Family).
And who are the political "intermediaries" between the increasingly astronomical upper class of America and the increasingly victimized middle and lower classes. You guessed it! The "bipartisan centrists".
This scheme of things is like a perpetual motion machine. The 2% pig rich will continue to make fools out of the 98% via their centrist political stooges, until and if we work out how to break their machine.
Is this impossible? Certainly not. We can boycott (our chief unplayed trump card!), we can elect even more liberal candidates next time (2008 comes to mind!), and we can continue to keep having our "town hall" meetings on rational and moral internet sites.
We have truth, science, and integrity on our side. And we are, after all, the huge majority of American citizens and voters. It's time for us all to become activists for America and the Earth.
The alternative is not only what was there before 2006 -- but what is STILL there in the form of elite-sucking-up dem centrists. **********************************************************************
www.theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com
A liberal American, PhD mathematician, bipedal Earthling.
#1 - There are virtually no Republican centrists and no policy being driven from what remains of that part of the GOP. Prove me wrong. Point to a prominent GOP centrist. Show me the policies of that wing of the GOP. Just try.
#2 - Because of #1, there is no such thing bipartisan centrism.
Once you analyze the above simple facts, I am not sure where that leaves one with the items you posit.
There are a lot of people on the left that love to spout off things like this. But, when you step back from emotion and look at each of the items piece by piece, facts do not support these allegations.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 4:59:18 PM
One bill does not a policy make, any more than one blizzard disproves global warming. I would agree that you probably could find a handful of GOP centrists still clinging to political life support, but there are no central themes, no policies that they are putting forward. There is no there, there.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 10:20:54 PM
We are living in a dictatorship of the rich. Period.
How extraordinary that CENTRISM IS FASCISM LIGHT could be so "semantically misunderstood" (?) as to miss the number one truth of American politics, namely that most politicians (e.g., Bush/Republicans and dem centrists) are stooges, merely, of Greek God like, astronomically rich elites. Not to realize this is to be taken in by an absurd political game that is much ado about nothing. The core fact of our national existence is that we live in an Oligarcy (a dictatorship of the rich). Not to see this is not to see the sun.
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (217 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 482 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 7:49:29 PM
Dictatorship of the rich, I would probably agree...
"We are living in a dictatorship of the rich. Period."
I would probably agree that this is where we find ourselves. I think it happened very slowly over the past 40-50 years.
"How extraordinary that CENTRISM IS FASCISM LIGHT could be so "semantically misunderstood" (?) as to miss the number one truth of American politics, namely that most politicians (e.g., Bush/Republicans and dem centrists) are stooges, merely, of Greek God like, astronomically rich elites."
This is where I partly disagree. I think the GOP had this dictatorship of the rich in mind all along. All of their policies up until now have had this goal:
- Vouchers to take money from public education and funnel it to private schools, giving the rich super education and the middle class and poor terrible education. What is more basic than that? Typical New York City Private Schools cost $27,000 per year, and recently they have gone away from differences between the grades. Where kindergarten and elementary school used to be incrementally cheaper, now they are becoming the same.
- Nepotism, propped up by a systematic attack on taxing inheritance.
If I could point to two policies that are at the core of GOP movement toward an oligarchy, these are the two to which I would point. I would also say that the Democratic party in general has been strongly against both of these, so your argument doesnt quite work. Could one point to a few Democrats voting in favor of either? I am sure you could probably find some. The vast majority of them have fought these two ideas.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 10:29:44 PM
Again and again there is a never-ending urge for liberals to retreat back to a preconceived agenda of the Rainbow Coalition, rather then moving forward and redefining the agenda for the 21st Century.
If something is not racist, then it surely becomes fascist. But, it's never original. The problems with Clinton, Lieberman, etc. is not that their right-wing, it's that they structured their agenda around their constituencies. If you want support, you have to have a social base that will provide some muscle to your program. Even the jihadists have realized that, as Hebollah and Hamas try in their own way to play power politics through mass political actions.
Stop thinking that liberalism has an inherent social value in opposing fascism and start developing strategy and policies that will unite a new base. A new ten-point program, like the Contract with America needs to be established as a basis for unifying people. As it stands, in the last election Democrats were caught flat-footed without a real concrete anti-war agenda aside from just vocal opposition to the war. As a result, there was NO mandate for ending the war. It was more like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war then it was proposing policy recommendations that would pay reparations or limit Presidential war-making powers, reduce the conflict in the region or support the national aspirations of the Kurds.
by
Martin Zehr (36 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 5:56:35 PM
I copied the following from a comment I made on another artical but it is applicable to this discussion. I believe that the two issues that most of the 98% should be concerned with are these issues. I think it developed from the power given to Corporations through "Corporate Personhood". They should not independently be able to contribute to any organization that spends money in any way to effect legislation.
I think they are perfectly able to express themseloves by the political input of their owners/consumers/workers. They may be requested to come before commitees for advice in their fields but they should not have the ability to write policy.
It is real to note that it was a Democrat that ushered in Free Trade Agreements. Plenty of Democrats have voted for the patriot act and even the lattest adjustments. Both are examples of acts not based in anything that is represenative of the people of America.
The trade agreements put our workforce at a disadvantage because we play by ethical rules that have been established in the law of our land. We do not utilize child labor but you can buy a plenty of good manufactured by children who don't have basic safety implimentations in their work enviroment. In the U.S. there are enviromental rules that have to be adhered to in order to run a factory. Most of the goods for sale in our stores come from manufacturers that do not conform to these standards. Our workers get manditory breaks and premium pay after 40 hour in most cases. These things don't exist where most of our goods are produced because of the cheap labor or more appropriately low production costs. Thats a sellout of our ethical standards for greed and all the legislative action that this blood money can buy.
The Patriot Act is a blantant assult on our Constitution. All who supported it with or without reading it is in breach of the oathes they are sworn to uphold. I know that an integral part of the oath I once took stated that I swear to defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. It seems to me that any legislator that votes to subvert the Constitution outside the accepted way of ammending the Constitution is in the strike zone of a domestic enemy of The Constitution of United States. I know that most of our members of Congress fall in that class. It is what it is. The words and actions of the act and the votes demonstrate compliance with the Neo-Con agenda of shredding our Constitution while bankrupting this nation due to engaging in a never ending war that they will use to fraudulently steal the taxpayers money.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 7:57:37 PM
Thank you. Sometimes one writes from the hip to get certain things out there, but the factual pieces have to be filled in later or it all floats away. Your specifics (including the dem responsiblity part) are very, very helpful.
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (217 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 482 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 9:19:39 PM
I was a free trader once upon a time. Most Democrats were, I am sure of that.
Those of us who were for it made a mistake. Most Democrats who voted for things like NAFTA realize that they made a mistake and have admitted as much.
Making a mistake isnt the same as intentionally being for a bad agenda. I think you could say the same about the Patriot act. I was never for it, I fought that one from the very beginning, but I think many congressional Democrats allowed themselves to be caught up in the administration's fear-mongering post 911 and voted for a terrible Bill.
Responsible for having made a mistake? Yes. Being part of some conspiracy like is being suggested in this thread. Nope, again, no there, there.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 10:35:46 PM
My heart wants to go with this, since I still cling to those liberal (one of the best words in the American vocabulary!) ideals which the Democratic Party not so infrequently rises to in its better moments. Democratic as in Democracy, something like that. Keeping the faith . . .
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (217 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 482 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 11:55:16 PM
"Making a mistake isnt the same as intentionally being for a bad agenda. "
When you make what you call a "mistake" and someone dies because of your criminal negligence, you go to jail.
When you make what you call a "mistake" and a million people die (as in Iraq under Bill Clinton), then you are a monster, a tyrant, a mass murderer.
That your deluded base can't see it, doesn't change the facts on the ground (and six feet under it).
"I think you could say the same about the Patriot act. I was never for it, I fought that one from the very beginning, but I think many congressional Democrats allowed themselves to be caught up in the administration's fear-mongering post 911 and voted for a terrible Bill."
Allowed themselves?
You sure do like giving these democrats the benefit of the doubt to the point that they can do no wrong. This is like a religious zealot defending the indefensible.
There is, of course, a different take on this spin. They did exactly what they wanted to do, because it was in their interest. They continue to support mass murder and unconstitutional abominations because it is in their interest.
"Responsible for having made a mistake? Yes. Being part of some conspiracy like is being suggested in this thread. Nope, again, no there, there."
Not much there in your head I'm afraid. Responsible but not accountable. How cute.
Fascism needs to be opposed, period. With so many excuee making smiling happy face fascists defending the indefensible, like this, the solution is going to come down to revolution.
Revolution becomes feasible after a massive economic collapse, such as what is being engineered in DC as we type. The neocon/neolib plan is to militarize the society, put everyone in some sort of uniform for the reich. That may happen. It's being talked about in these "centrist" circles. Even Kerry had a "national service" plan to put all your children under some kind of federal control, just to fucking graduate from fucking high school. That thinking doesn't go away.
Again, fascism, and fascists must be opposed, no matter where you find them.
Your comments in single quotes, my previous comments in double quotes.
"Fascism is the correct word."
I disagree. Wikipedia compiled a number of definitions of Fascism which I have copied below.
""Making a mistake isnt the same as intentionally being for a bad agenda. ""
"When you make what you call a "mistake" and someone dies because of your criminal negligence, you go to jail."
People die and people lose their livelihoods as a result of political decisions all the time. Sometimes both possible decisions in a boolean question result in deaths. For instance:
- If we do not intervene in the current situation in Darfur, people will die. However, if we DO intervene, different people will die.
If one is determined to call someone bad, negligent, a murderer, you can almost always do so with a political leader. One has to keep their wits about these things otherwise the accusations you throw around recklessly like fascism and criminally negligent lose their meaning, just as the word appeasement has lost its meaning thanks to the Republicans.
"When you make what you call a "mistake" and a million people die (as in Iraq under Bill Clinton), then you are a monster, a tyrant, a mass murderer. That your deluded base can't see it, doesn't change the facts on the ground (and six feet under it)."
It really does change a lot as I illustrated above. It doesnt make Clinton or those who supported him tyrants or mass murderers. It makes those who call him that opportunists and sensationalists.
""I think you could say the same about the Patriot act. I was never for it, I fought that one from the very beginning, but I think many congressional Democrats allowed themselves to be caught up in the administration's fear-mongering post 911 and voted for a terrible Bill."
"Allowed themselves? You sure do like giving these democrats the benefit of the doubt to the point that they can do no wrong. This is like a religious zealot defending the indefensible."
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you have never been in a leadership position of any group or situation where you have been called on to make difficult decisions under pressure. If you had, it would be apparent to you that under such conditions it is easy to make mistakes and that to throw fire and brimstone condemnations at such people is more than a little unfair.
"There is, of course, a different take on this spin..."
Yes, of course there are a myriad of different takes. You can see these actions as bad, as good, or as honest and pragmatic as you want to see them.
""Responsible for having made a mistake? Yes. Being part of some conspiracy like is being suggested in this thread. Nope, again, no there, there.""
"Not much there in your head I'm afraid. Responsible but not accountable. How cute."
Your argument, rife with logical fallacies as it is, finally gets to the 'best' of them, ad-hominem. Ad-hominem coupled with projecting on me an imaginary leap to 'responsible but not accountable'. Of course, I never said any such thing.
"Fascism needs to be opposed, period. With so many excuee making smiling happy face fascists defending the indefensible, like this, the solution is going to come down to revolution. Revolution becomes feasible after a massive economic collapse, such as what is being engineered in DC as we type. The neocon/neolib plan is to militarize the society, put everyone in some sort of uniform for the reich. That may happen. It's being talked about in these "centrist" circles. Even Kerry had a "national service" plan to put all your children under some kind of federal control, just to fucking graduate from fucking high school. That thinking doesn't go away. Again, fascism, and fascists must be opposed, no matter where you find them."
As I have said in the past to multiple other delusional rants such as this one, what exactly do you think would happen in a revolution when all the guns are owned by the far right and the military leans right?
This is all part and parcel to your crazy way of thinking. You are so full of ideology that it gets in the way of a clear headed analysis of anything. If a revolution happens, you and I and the majority of people who write or post here are dead, period. I dont own a gun and do not plan to own a gun. I doubt you do either, but perhaps I am wrong. Maybe there are a couple of dozen progressive militias out there with tens of thousands of members I am blissfully unaware of and I am the last one not to join.
Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. ... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. ... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number. ... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. (a version of the text is here).
Since Mussolini, however, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term "fascism." Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".[2]
Two particular definitions reflect the fact that Fascism has always arisen from an extreme right-wing ideology:
(1) "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." --American Heritage Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983)
(2) "Extreme right-wing totalitarian political system or views, as orig. prevailing in Italy (1922-43)." --The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1984)
A recent definition is that by former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[3]
Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
"1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign 'contamination."[4]
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 8:31:12 AM
Conservative ideology has been used to corrupt and subvert our once upon a time egalitarian society bequeathed us by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Inspired by the Great Depression, Roosevelt and Democrats gave us the New Deal to right the wrongs inflicted on us by the Plutocracy throughout our history. That's all over now.
Now we have two political parties that essentially serve the same master, the Plutocracy.
Impeachment of the Bush Regime is off the table because the Plutocrats have decreed it.
Any investigations by the remaining honorable lawmakers in our government into the multitude of crimes committed by the Bush Regime will be sabotaged just like the Iran Contra Investigations. Not only will the Bush Regime escape justice for past crimes, they will be free to commit future crimes against the American people, and the world.
When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption . . . every other correction is either useless or a new evil.
- Thomas Jefferson
Our present system of government cannot and will not be reformed by our existing leaders. Democracy can only be restored by establishing new political parties, or by force of arms. Perhaps it will require both.
by
rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 4:10:44 AM
Centrism serves to calm the lower classes' ardor when they start to wake up a bit, when they start to see that there is no reason to continue to allow themselves to be exploited by the rich and mega-rich. Comments like the previous one about how egalitarian America was back in the days of Roosevelt is an example of the sort of distortions that centrists make all the time -- they want you to believe that one fraction of the ruling class (Dems) are your friends, that it suffices to vote for them. I don't think so.
by
Joe Bob (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 5:15:31 AM
The original fascists were, like the Nazis, a political party before they became mass murderers. The fascist party was founded by Benito Mussolini, who described fascism as a joining of business and government in such a way that industrial leaders had much more clout than ordinary people in governmental decision-making.
With the coming of the industrial revolution, the idea of this form of government was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Sooner or later, someone like Mussolini would simply turn the idea into a political platform and then, attempt to codify it. The Nazis, too, were similar to the fascists, mainly because war demands it. It takes a close coordination of government and industry to wage war, especially effective war. Hitler's insatiable craving for war and his insistence on conquering Europe, as pay back for the humiliation of Germany during and after WWI, not to mention his pathological hatred for Jews drove him into close alliance with industry. (The Bushes laundered money for him and his industrial pals, as I recall, even after the U.S. declared war on Germany, resulting in the freezing of their assets, which were, unfortunately, given back to them by Truman.)
Today's scoundrels could be called corporatists, which is what they are. Corporatism is very closely allied with the beliefs of fascists. Today's corporate leaders are rewarded for sociopathic behavior and those who rise to the top in the corporate world are very often easily diagnosed as sociopatic personality types or functional psychotics.
Years ago, we believed that whenever there was conflict, the Marines were the first to arrive. Then, we found out it was the CIA. Now we know that it is the American corporations who arrive first and, usually, start the trouble, and we, the tax payers, are supposed to cover the cost of protecting these sociopathic institutions as they rampage around pillage and exploit the rest of the world.
I have never been a member of any political party. Any of them can easily become so ideological as to become dangerous, as the GOP has so obviously become over the past 40 years. They have become authoritarian corporatists, now in full bloom, under George II. The GOP are well on their way to self-destruction. The Centrists will do all they can to prevent this, be they Democrat or Republican, because they are all invested in the two party system, where all monies are locked up by the major parties and a third party is impossible.
Nothing will change in this country until we get the money out of electoral politics, once and for all. Public funding of elections would cost each taxpayer about $6.00 a year. A very small price to pay, for more representative, responsive and ethical government.
If that remains impossible, then we are left with some damned unpleasant choices. I'm sure I don't have to tell any of you what those choices are.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 7:29:33 AM
resembles more and more the bickering of the victims while being led to the slaughter. Who cares? It does not matter how do you define them- they are SOBs. And they will kill us all with the smirk on their faces and ' I approve these elections!'. I would advise not to waste time discussing what Robert Lee can do to us but rather concentrate on what we can do to him (courtesy of U. Grant).
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 9:38:55 AM
and it is MOST important to note the way a certain resident "Centrist" rushed to the defense of his party. I suggest that the statement that there are no Republican Centrists immediately makes all that follows distorted in the light of his obvious closemindedness.
Unless and until we understand clearly that neither political party represents the values of the progressive in this nation, until we fully understand why Rahm Emmanuel and Charles Schumer, immediately following the election, rushed in to diminish the role played by Howard Dean whose brilliant 50 state strategy actually made the results possible. These two waged a single minded campaign to validate the conservative leanings of the Democratic Party despite the results in which voters rejected overwhelmingly (sort of)the conservative policies that got us into this swamp.
Obviously I am in the camp of those who believe the two party system to be a sham and a fraud, a methodology wherein Corporatism flourishes while giving the voter the myth of choice. Obviously there are those here who would disagree with that assessment, fair enough. But be warned, there are also those here who know full well that what I speak is true and would use every option, including censorship of what I preach, to continue to keep the system unchanged, to keep money as the sole decider of policy.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 9:52:12 AM
I see some agreement that Corporatism is in the drivers seat, but I heard all the BS about our free Trade agreements as it was being packaged to push on the American people. It never made sense. Exploitation of third world workers and enviroments is bad enough, but China has taken it further. They have mandatory abortion little to no human rights, & they have taken the wealth of their trade surplus and put it directly into guidance for missles that can land in our neiborhoods.
These actions were not taken by the blind. Those responsible knew exactly what they were doing. They stuff their pockets with the Blood money of the globally poor meanwhile they had to weaken the only class that could make them accountable.
The voters of the U.S. have been consuming this plausible deniability BS since 1870's when Corporations were granted Personhood. That is why all our covert activity is based on maintaining levels of deniability. It is exactly why the neo-con's have been so successful in the execution of their agenda.
Our voters need to reject this understanding of every little deception and start throwing out the Bums until they get real. Round one is over. We need to keep on their asses both the R's & the D's. High Crimes are being portraid on the American People through a concerted effort of both parties.
There are some honorable men and women in our Congress I would guess about 10% of each party. They stand out when they critisize their own party.
I can think of a few that have impressed me recently. Russ Feingold, Dennis Kuccinich, & Ron Paul. Ron Paul stands out for me because he has been quite critical of this mess and I haven't been use to that since Richard Cohen spoke out against Richard Nixon.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 12:31:03 PM
My chief hope (prayer?) now is that the pig rich went vastly TOO far under Bush. There's a kind of "minimal" concession they have to make to the middle and lower classes to keep the game going. We dogs have to AT LEAST be thrown our bones, and this time the Bush/Saudi Royal Family (etc.) even kept the bones. This could the stuff of "raising consciousness" and the streets. They trashed the "presence of Democracy" and the American Dictatorship of the Rich is now seen in its loathsome nakedness.
Plus, the internet chemistry might catalyze something unexpected. Wishful thinking?
Bill
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (217 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 482 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 12:37:48 PM
