-
Um the military industrial complex is linked to multinational corporations like Mobil, Boeing, GM, etc. I remember during the first Gulf War, that General Motors said it made its most robust business was that done with the military. Anyhow the most likely scenario is going to be a Democrat in the White House and a very left wing one, either Obama or Clinton, maybe both. Europe is beginning to develop its own military industrial complex, so are China and Russia, the latter which is rebuilding into a superpower.
-
[QUOTE=CBGBConnisur]Um the military industrial complex is linked to multinational corporations like Mobil, Boeing, GM, etc. I remember during the first Gulf War, that General Motors said it made its most robust business was that done with the military. Anyhow the most likely scenario is going to be a Democrat in the White House and a very left wing one, either Obama or Clinton, maybe both. Europe is beginning to develop its own military industrial complex, so are China and Russia, the latter which is rebuilding into a superpower.[/QUOTE]
Left? LOL
Okay if this primary run up is a "smoke and mirrors" show and the general is a continued show to those that can't make up their own minds, I think its possible and with a largely left leaning House and Senate that Obama or Clinton can be "pushed" into a Left leaning stance on National issues.
As I said on another site, I'd say 60% of America doesn't care what happens outside of the country, so as long as you give them Universial Health Care, Stablize the Economy and Rebuild the Country, that will distract them from the Imperializm that MIC wants to continue to run.
The Giled Age was crushed before and out of control corperations were reined in to so speak, so that will happen again. Wall Street which calls the shots can weather the lost of Medical Services and be happy to take payment from the Government to still be in control of Medical Services.
The question becomes who is paying for it??? US in the from of Taxes (Preferred) or up front payment to the establishment (Not preferred)
Hey CBGB we get Dateline (Aussie version) on Link TV
"Iraq Misadventure" - Classic
-
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/GustavSchwarzenegger.gif[/url]
The above is a link to a photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger's father. He looks like a muscular version of Adolf Hitler. And he was a Nazi as well, in fact he voluntarily joined the Nazi party.
-
[QUOTE=Naked Gunz]
O'DRAMA would win by a landslide if he were not Black. RACISM is everywhere-planet wide. Thats whats real.[/QUOTE]
The only American presidents to win the office for the first time in a "landslide" were Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington - every other "landslide" was a case where the President was looking to continue thier respective administrations. Americans don't vote for the new guy in a "landslide".
Moreover, all of the most recent US elections have been tight with the winner rarely carrying a majority of votes cast:
George W. Bush got 50.7% of the votes in 2004
George W. Bush got 47.9% of the votes in 2000 (where Gore got 48.4%)
Clinton won 49 percent of votes in 1996, 43 percent in 1992. Ross Perot played a significant role in both Clinton victories.
So, it's reasonable to think the 2008 election will be tight, regardless of the candidates or thier race. This is true even if you think the Republicans are hurting because of Bush unpopularity.
For instance, in the 1976 election Ford had pardoned the extremely unpopular Nixon and, of course, Carter was a conservative southern Democrat. It was still a very close election. Carter got 50.1 of votes cast.
This contrasts with 2008, where McCain has "deniability" with the Bush administration, while Obama is a liberal from Chicago. Left of the Clintons. Based on his politics, he's not a slam dunk candidate. There are certainly states where his race and name are likely to hurt him, I'd suggest that in many of those places, he would have a hard time based on his politics alone.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear race has helped him so far. Some Democrats have said the only thing that makes Obama viable is his race. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
-
[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]On the other hand, it's pretty clear race has helped him so far. Some Democrats have said the only thing that makes Obama viable is his race. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”[/QUOTE]
Obama's race helped a little in the Primary, but, alas, in our benighted homeland, it hurts tremendously in the General Election.
-
[QUOTE=Opebo]Obama's race helped a little in the Primary, but, alas, in our benighted homeland, it hurts tremendously in the General Election.[/QUOTE]
Yep but the interesting part will be just WHO is racist and who's not or who's not dumb enough to use race and vote against their own self-interest which happens all too often and that's because we run the largest propaganda machine on the planet.
The Internet has played its biggest roll thus far in this race, I don't think it will be at tight as you think. Dems are signing up to vote in record numbers, we've had record turnout thus far. Repubs can't all get behind McSain and I believe many will "sit this one out" and try to make a comeback in either 2012 or 2016 were they can put blame on the Dems for -
Not fixing the infastructure
Being a largely Green and Bio Fuel powered Nation by 2012
For not "winning" the war in Afghanistan
For not balancing the budget
Etc, Etc, Etc
But who know, maybe the stars will align again like they did for FDR and real change will happen. Then the Repugs can spend the next 20-30 years undoing what 16 years of Dem rule has done. I think American's finally UNDERSTAND what while Dems maybe Tax and Spend, at least they have something coming in. The Neo Cons cut taxes and spend..... That's a sure fire way to bankurpt a country, its working....
-
The National Organization for Women on Joe Biden.
[url]http://www.now.org/press/08-08/08-23.html[/url]
Here's some additioned material on what NOW considers offensive. They are currently linked to it directly off the NOW website. It should give you an idea of NOW's perspective on things.
[url]http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offensiveads.html[/url]
-
[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]The only American presidents to win the office for the first time in a "landslide" were Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington - every other "landslide" was a case where the President was looking to continue thier respective administrations. Americans don't vote for the new guy in a "landslide".
Moreover, all of the most recent US elections have been tight with the winner rarely carrying a majority of votes cast:
George W. Bush got 50.7% of the votes in 2004
George W. Bush got 47.9% of the votes in 2000 (where Gore got 48.4%)
Clinton won 49 percent of votes in 1996, 43 percent in 1992. Ross Perot played a significant role in both Clinton victories.
So, it's reasonable to think the 2008 election will be tight, regardless of the candidates or thier race. This is true even if you think the Republicans are hurting because of Bush unpopularity.
For instance, in the 1976 election Ford had pardoned the extremely unpopular Nixon and, of course, Carter was a conservative southern Democrat. It was still a very close election. Carter got 50.1 of votes cast.
This contrasts with 2008, where McCain has "deniability" with the Bush administration, while Obama is a liberal from Chicago. Left of the Clintons. Based on his politics, he's not a slam dunk candidate. There are certainly states where his race and name are likely to hurt him, I'd suggest that in many of those places, he would have a hard time based on his politics alone.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear race has helped him so far. Some Democrats have said the only thing that makes Obama viable is his race. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”[/QUOTE]
Clinton won by a decent margin in 1996. Obama might have trouble in certain battleground states. I think he can win Ohio and Michigan, probably take Virginia and New Hampshire. Michigan should be a lock due the economic situation over there.
Obama is a bit too lofty in his rhetoric, Biden is more of a straight talker, speaking about the issues that are really bothering Americans such as being able to pay the bills, making sure the kids have a real future, etc. Right now more Americans are worried about paying the bills rather than getting into conflicts in far flung regions of the world. So the advantage belongs to Obama.
Tax and spend actually works out better than cutting taxes for the rich spending it on fruitless wars like is being done now. Its also one of the underlying factors behind the decline in value of the US Dollar. If a more sound fiscal strategy is put in place by the next administration, the Dollar can recover, if not.... :(
-
I've been reading through the Democrat Platform, a bit of language like this...
"Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters"
What exactly do these words mean? What are the implications of giving people who use this kind of language national power? That is, are the Democrats considering outlawing "demeaning portrayals of women"? What exactly is a "demeaning portrayal of women"? It's pretty clear from my previous post what the National Organization for Women thinks is an "offensive" portrayal of women - it's anything that might prompt an erection.
Also, there's some language about the hitting the [i]demand[/i] side of prostitution (that probably means you, by the way). Wonder how they are going to do that? You would think the party that gave us Eliot Spitzer could take a moment of self-reflection before renewing the war on men.
"a remarkably feminist document"
[url]http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2008&base_name=draft_womens_issues_in_dem_pla[/url]
-
[QUOTE=Opebo]our benighted homeland[/QUOTE]
I like the expression "our benighted homeland", but it's not clear to me it applies to the United States. Here you've got a son of Kenya facing off against a beauty queen. More or less. The political poetry is nearly Peruvian or even Italian in ebuilence.
[QUOTE=CBGBConnisur]So the advantage belongs to Obama[/QUOTE]
Yes. I guess. I'm not good with predictions, I'm more about history. I worship Nemisis, the Greek goddess who screws people over by granting them thier wishes.
-
[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]I like the expression "our benighted homeland", but it's not clear to me it applies to the United States. Here you've got a son of Kenya facing off against a beauty queen. More or less. The political poetry is nearly Peruvian or even Italian in ebuilence.[/QUOTE]
Merely an entertainment for the serfs. The election is always won by the owning class - the only real constituent for either party.
-
[QUOTE=CBGBConnisur]Clinton won by a decent margin in 1996. Obama might have trouble in certain battleground states. I think he can win Ohio and Michigan, probably take Virginia and New Hampshire. Michigan should be a lock due the economic situation over there.
Obama is a bit too lofty in his rhetoric, Biden is more of a straight talker, speaking about the issues that are really bothering Americans such as being able to pay the bills, making sure the kids have a real future, etc. Right now more Americans are worried about paying the bills rather than getting into conflicts in far flung regions of the world. So the advantage belongs to Obama.
Tax and spend actually works out better than cutting taxes for the rich spending it on fruitless wars like is being done now. Its also one of the underlying factors behind the decline in value of the US Dollar. If a more sound fiscal strategy is put in place by the next administration, the Dollar can recover, if not.... :([/QUOTE]
Tax and Spend isn't true of course... They tell the lie often enough you think its true, it isn't. Its should be phased -
We Dems spend to make sure Americans have jobs in case you greedy assholes in the Conservative movement decide not to hire anybody. The truth is FDR spent money on large public works projects just to make sure jobs were available to people that wanted to work, yes it put the country in debt, but when you have more people working, prospering, you have more tax money coming in.
Contemporary Dems understand that...
Under Democratic rule we had more money in our coffers than anytime in history, were do you think Eisenhower got the money for the Korean War and The Interstate Highway system??? And even HE said beware of the "Industrial Military Complex"....
Conservatives spend all their time talking about the one or two free-loaders that would take advantage of governments benevolence and their sole debate is based around the 1% of America that would use the system to just be lazy.
This is the 2nd time they put our country in ruin....
Watch they'll come back in 10 or 12 years with some other idea to try and fool Americans that they have the better idea.
Business people aren't stupid, they welcome the tax cuts and government hand-outs and business welfare. However they know also that the government can't go bankrupt, that unhappy workers have less productivity and if they make less they can't spend money on the shiet we don't need.
But the social structure has changed enough that you now need to implement social programs similar to the ones you find in Social Democratic countries like Britain and Germany.
Universal Health Care for example will take employers off the hook. Big Pharma and Health Care providers just want to be apart of it and profit. But they abused the system, and like Obama said need to own up to their failed way of doing business. Rich people will find some another way to make money, there's no need to feel sorry for them and that's what the Conservatives have successfully done to average Americans.
We need sweeping social change and we just might get it this time. My goodness Truman wanted to push through Universal Health Care back during his tenure, this is not a new idea at all, Conservatives have always beat that back as being Communist. Well the only commies left are the Chinese and nobody would believe any nonsense you would have to say about China, so it will get done and its similar to Edward's plan.
Let's just say America's ideas of Imperialism isn't over quite yet, but we'll temper that with sweeping social change and the Conservatives won't be able to keep it from happening actually because the Americans that pay attention will hold them accountable and sweep their butts out of office if they obstruct the change we need.
My goodness its about time, roads are crumbling, bridges are falling, dams are cracked, we need Wind Power, a Solar subsidy program that would put millions of American roofs to work harvesting the sun's powerm, cutting down our use of coal and oil for home heating, power and cooling. At least 15-20 MILLION jobs over the next 8-10 years.
When people can stop worrying about their wallets, then they'll be more confortable when you want sweeping social changes.
We can pay down the national debt by just having more people moving up into a higher tax bracket, cutting back spending the miltary by say 20% and you could still re-tool our Army's with that, its still more than anybody else spends by 45%.... Allowing those that don't make as much to keep their money so they can buy goods and services thus make money from sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. The US has an income stream like a muthfucka, how come you think countries are so ready to loan us money? They know we can pay it back and then some, but the social climate has to be right, when Obama talks about "America's Promise" the business sector also sees "America's Promise" as an opportunity to make more money off America... It can't be dysfunctional for that to be possible.. Right now its dysfunctional
-
[QUOTE=Opebo]Merely an entertainment for the serfs. The election is always won by the owning class - the only real constituent for either party.[/QUOTE]
It is entertaining.
[QUOTE=DJ4$]you greedy assholes[/QUOTE]
A principle concern a reader here would have with the Democrat party is it's interest in extending the power of Federal government over individuals. In simple terms, they do this by taking more of what you own and giving to someone who wants something for nothing. "I want to have kids while I'm still in high school and I want the government to provide a variety legal and programatic ways to make that easier".
-
[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]A principle concern a reader here would have with the Democrat party is it's interest in extending the power of Federal government over individuals. In simple terms, they do this by taking more of what you own and giving to someone who wants something for nothing. "I want to have kids while I'm still in high school and I want the government to provide a variety legal and programatic ways to make that easier".[/QUOTE]
Thanks for contributing the usual right-wing racist line. The only people in this world who get something for nothing are the owners, JD.
-
[quote=opebo]thanks for contributing the usual right-wing racist line. [/quote]
before i started the chatter here, no one had posted anything to this thread since this past march. so, in the sense that i've given you some reason to post, some reason to get your blood up - you are welcome.
though i'm not really sure where the "racist" comes from. to bring you up-to-speed, the most recent notable case of high school girls making a 'pact' to get pregnant was in gloucester, massachusetts. as far as i know, all the girls involved were white. i know a couple of white girls who game the system, juggling boyfriends and pumping out kids. it did not occur to me that what i was saying had anything to do with race at all. so, if you think what i said is racist, that's more about you, not about me.
but, yeah, it's conservative thinking. i would be very surprised if you don't believe in ownership on some level - are you suggesting a person should not even have self-ownership? that everything belongs to the community?
[quote=opebo]the only people in this world who get something for nothing are the owners, jd.[/quote]
i guess i agree. for instance, i earned 73 cents today in my prosper.com account. in theory, that's money i got "for nothing" lending it out to various people who need it. of course, i did work for the money i was lending out and earning that 73 cents meant taking on some risk. it surprises me how much money it takes to earn 73 cents a day. you have to work hard to get something for nothing.
it surprises me that american government generally taxes savings like this more than, say, purchasing comic books or junk food.
a lot of people own things in the united states. many people own homes (far more today than 10 years ago) and many people are invested in financial markets. and, generally, these are the people who vote. the politics reflect this. so, did not disagree with you - "the election is always won by the owning class - the only real constituent for either party". it's just the "owning class" is a big thing in the united states, a lot of people own stuff.
