...and I see the 2008 election as possibly the last opportunity to reverse the fascist trend.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:16:33 AM

  (0+)

They stole the elections twice now, what makes you think they won't do it this time?

by Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 226 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 at 7:42:36 AM

  (0+)

I would say that there is a very low order of probability that there will be fair elections, particularly with what the fascists have at stake. However, there are many more of us aware of their techniques, and a combination of common sense countermeasures coupled with an overwhelming voter turnout must be our response. Activity and communication in this regard is essential.

In 2006, Karl Rove had "the" numbers ahead of the election and the customary dirty tricks, no, make that election fraud techniques (let's call it the crime that it is) were employed. But the surge in voter turnout was not anticipated and that is what defeated their election fraud, however much you wish to quibble about the lap dog majority we picked for ourselves.

The scoundrels are not nearly as stupid as they are criminal, so look for an intensified reprise of the same old crap in the 2008 election. Voter caging, hacked machines, illegitimate propaganda voting instructions and long waits to cast a ballot in what they perceive as enemy territory will all be used. So will "lost" ballots, "found" ballots, an intense campaign to force voters to use provisional ballots and miscounting absentee ballots. If, on election night, you want to see the symptom of fraud, listen for them to stridently disagree with exit poll results. I predict a difference of about 3% in their favor is what they will claim.

We need to counter this fraud with vigilance and numbers. Do your part. 

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 at 8:07:57 AM

  (0+)

"This election is crucial" and "taking this country back."

Unfortunately, the hard cold truth is that there's no prospect whatever of anything positive coming out of next year's election. All the "electable" candidates (meaning, those with significant corporate backing) will do absolutely nothing to put a stop to the decline of US society, & to the corrupt character of our government (nicely illustrated in your article). The government represents the interests of only the richest layers of American society. That's where the trouble comes from, and that's not going to change. Not only won't it change -- it won't even be discussed, & most people will remain largely unaware of it.

After the election, regardless of who wins, some sort of simplistic "analysis" will be slapped on it by the MSM, and all the crimes will continue. None will be faced squarely, or even acknowledged. If Hillary or Obama wins, the MSM will proclaim that the public "voted for historic change" (ie, a woman or black) -- and nothing will change. If Rudy (or any of the Republican beer-hall brawlers) wins, the MSM will say the public voted for "a strong hand on the tiller, in turbulent times." Then the crimes will continue.

The part about "taking this country back" -- I understand the feeling behind this, of course. But the more seriously you study the history of this country, the clearer it becomes that "we" never had this country to begin with. It merely felt like that, in some respects. It was largely an illusion, however. We shouldn't kid ourselves about that. Much of the illusion came from the fact that our media never let us understand the full scope of the crimes our government was committing in our name.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 2:59:01 PM

  (0+)

It felt like this in '68 too. We would get any control back and that the government was amok. Eventually the people behind it paid except for those who are or were in this current administration. You didn't mention Edwards. I have a feeling when all is said and done, he will be the one to bring us back out of all of this. I could be wrong. Clinton or Obama would be a travestry. We could all just through up our hands and ride this out, but I'd probably get shot anyway. Might as well get shot earlier than later if the cause is useless.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 4:55:16 PM

  (0+)

Edwards probably wouldn't be too bad.  It would be nice if the parties would support Kucinich or Paul.  I struggle with how to promote their radical ideas like returning ethics to government.  It is a never ending struggle that may not be possible.

Edwards is a lawyer yet he needs to to come across stronger on his adds.  The People are outraged at these corrupt bastards.  The Congress is gearing up to declare war on Homegrown Terrorists.  Guess where this War is going to happen.

One thing that I was taught years ago is that if it ain't broke don't fix it.  If they are planning to take on homegrown terror then they believe there is malcontent.  Look around whose unhappy with the status quo.  That is scary.  They have already proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they don't care about rules or LAWS.  Their actions demonstrate an assult on "The United States Constituion".  All of a sudden lyrics of Jim Morrison's 5 to 1 start surfacing in my head.

It is going to be interresting, very interresting.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:45:51 PM

  (0+)

"the more seriously you study the history of this country, the clearer it becomes that "we" never had this country to begin with. It merely felt like that, in some respects. It was largely an illusion, however. We shouldn't kid ourselves about that."

Either you are right or wrong. 

Obviously you are right in a trivial sense. The 'we' (the you) that make up contemporary America are less than 120 years old.  You can't have been born owning America but you may have had a birthright in the US Constitution - in the rights that previous generations (with their warts and all) bequeathed you - and you may be in danger of frittering it away too easily now if you dismiss it. 

Also, I wonder why you'd think "we shouldn't kid ourselves about that"? Are you arguing AGAINST hope or FOR more upheaval? 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:41:05 PM

  (0+)

I see it, is that hope is justified only if we start seriously contemplating a great deal more "upheaval." In other words, I see no prospect of addressing today's crisis within the established framework, because the framework itself (corporate capitalism) is the cause of the crisis, & the framework itself will not permit any real discussion of its own terrible inadequacies.

Take the issue of global warming, for example. Efforts to seriously address this problem cannot get off the ground because the oil companies have too much power. They control too much media opinion, & in effect pull the strings of the marionettes in the US govt. And now as we head into a US presidential election, you can be sure that this basic truth will remain entirely in the shadows. There will be questions in debates about abortion & which candidate has "deeper faith in God" -- but no questions about how to rein in the power of the energy lobby. The election will come and go -- and the power of the energy lobby in controlling national policy will remain not merely undiminished, but completely unchallenged.

With every other burning issue, the process is exactly similar. Regardless of who wins the elections, the real criminals will remain in the shadows, their interests completely protected. The 2 parties will both nominate candidates who will continue the Iraq occupation, & who won't even speak of cutting the "defense" budget. The "War on Terror" won't be "on the table" for discussion -- it will simply be taken for granted that the only possible course is to continue it, & to try to "win" it.

Nothing can be solved in a system that works like this. Our public discourse won't even allow the real problems to be identified by name, let alone solve them.

The part about "we never really had this country to begin with" -- Yes, the Constitution has some very inspiring language in it. But having the nice words on paper is one thing; translating them to real life is something else. It is unfortunately very easy to make people think they live in a "great democracy," simply by paying constant lip service to the abstract concept of democracy, & by making a huge extravaganza of "elections" every few years. This suffices to hoodwink most of the population. Once they're hoodwinked, you can make them go along with almost anything, no matter how undemocratic or adverse to their interests it is.

There's a very insightful quote that refers to this process: a Chicago priest named Father Edward Dowling wrote, in 1941, "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 at 2:11:00 PM

  (0+)

To call the Progressive the mainstay of the Democratic Party is to live in the past, in my opinion. It has been a long time since either the progressive wing of the party or the black caucus has had any say whatever in the actions and direction of that party.

If you are serious about sending a message in the coming election then refuse to vote for any democrat or republican. Use your vote more constructively to help third parties get matching funds.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 5:47:00 PM

  (0+)

RICH M I AGREE 100% HERE'S THE NEXT STEP

HE THAT HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT, AND BUY ONE.

( LUKE 22;36 KJV )

IT TOOK THE BETTER PART OF 100 YEARS FOR CFR TC GLOBALIST TO GET CONTOL OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND THEIR GUEST FOR ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, AND IF ANYONE THINKS THAT WE THE PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THIS IN ONE ELECTION THINK AGAIN.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 at 4:59:11 AM

  (0+)

Thats why I could consider Edwards.  I believe he has an affiliation with the CFR, he is bringing the Corporate money issue into his campain.  I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that is not affiliated with the CFR.  I haven't heard anything solid, but I think the money bomb on for today is bringing in more then was expected.  The weather is probably not so good for the TEA PARTY and you know the media will down play Paul's successes. 

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 at 9:28:56 AM

  (0+)

 YES OLD JOHN BOY IS A MEMBER OF CFR JUST GLOOGLE  JOHN EDWARDS AND CFR AND YOU WILL GET THE TRUTH.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Monday, Dec 17, 2007 at 1:51:13 AM

  (0+)